The Punjab and Haryana High Court set aside the order of the Additional Sessions Judge which dismissed an appeal filed by the petitioner, who was a minor on the grounds of limitation without going into the merits of the case.

Brief Facts:

A revision petition was filed under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 read with Section 482 CrPC against an order passed by Additional Sessions Judge which dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order Juvenile Justice Board being time-barred.

Contentions of the Applicant:

The learned counsel of the petitioner argued that the petitioner was a child in conflict with the law but the Principal Magistrate of the Juvenile Justice Board wrongly passed the order to conduct the trial by treating the petitioner as an adult. It was further argued that the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge just on the ground that the appeal was time-barred without entering into the merits of the case. It was further argued that the petitioner was just 17 years old and was thus not conversant with the technicalities of law and thus failed to file the appeal within the prescribed period of limitation.

Contentions of the Respondent:

The petition was resisted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the state but he agreed with the view that the Additional Sessions Judge should have disposed of the appeal on merits and not on technical grounds of limitation.

Observations of the Court:

The court observed that the petitioner even at present was stated to be less than 18 years of age and it was the duty of the court to impart justice. The court further observed that the Additional Sessions Judge should have decided the matter on merits without going into technicalities of limitation while keeping in mind that the petitioner was a juvenile.

The decision of the Court:

The court allowed the petition and the impugned order of the Additional Sessions Court was set aside and the matter was remanded back to it to be decided afresh on merits without going into technicalities of limitation.

Case Title: X vs. State of Haryana

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Karamjit Singh

Case No.: CRR-1438 of 2023 (O&M)

Advocate for the Applicant: Mr. Sarfraj Anjum

Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Naveen Sheoran, DAG

Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com

Picture Source :

 
Kritika