Allahabad High Court
Pushpendra Singh Thru. His Mother ... vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ... on 4 August, 2022
Bench: Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 15
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 791 of 2022
Revisionist :- Pushpendra Singh Thru. His Mother Smt. Kiran
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. And Another
Counsel for Revisionist :- Rajeev Kumar Mishra Rudra,Diwakar Prasad Tiwari
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I,J.
Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri K. N. Mishra, who has filed Vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party no.2, which is taken on record.
The instant criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist for setting aside the judgment and order dated 20.05.2022 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge POCSO Act, Gonda in Criminal Appeal No.29 of 2021 "Pushpendra Singh vs. State of U.P." filed under Section 101 of Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2015 as well as order dated 20.11.2021, passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Gonda in Preliminary Assessment Suit No.28/2020 "State vs. Pushpendra Singh" arising out of Case Crime No.66/2020, under Sections 302, 307, 147, 148, 149, 504 and 506 I.P.C. & Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station Umri Begumganj, District Gonda.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that the impugned orders dated 20.05.2022 and 20.11.2021 are patently illegal in sofar as the same did not take notice of fact that had assessment been done earlier as required under law. It would have yielded different result, beneficial to the revisionist. He has further submitted that Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2015 is a beneficial legislation meant to protect interest of juvenile. Therefore, it should be interpreted in a manner which promotes its object and which is in harmony with the object of the act. He has concluded his submission by submitting that the learned trial Court, while passing the impugned orders dated 20.05.2022,and 20.11.2021, have lost sight of the aforesaid beneficial object and therefore, have wrongly recorded the conclusion by means of the impugned orders.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. has submitted that the learned court below vide order dated 20.05.2022, affirmed the judgment and order dated 20.11.2021, passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Gonda while undertaking the enquiry under Section 15 read with Section 18 (3) of Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2015.
Admittedly, the age of the revisionist has been found to be more than 17 years on the date of incident. There is nothing on record to suggest that the aforesaid finding in respect of age of the revisionist on the date of incident is not proper and even the same has not been assailed by the revisionist also.
It is settled legal position of law that in exercise of power under Section 401 Cr.P.C. the concurrent finding of fact cannot be disturbed unless the same is perverse.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the record, this Court is of the considered opinion that no illegality or irregularity in the orders impugned is decipherable.
Accordingly, the criminal revision lacks merit and is hereby dismissed.
Order Date :- 4.8.2022
Mahesh
