Allahabad High Court
Chandan Kharwar Alias Ravi Kumar vs State Of U.P. Thru Secy. on 19 December, 2023
Author: Subhash Chandra Sharma
Bench: Subhash Chandra Sharma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:240189
Court No. - 80
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1725 of 2016
Revisionist :- Chandan Kharwar Alias Ravi Kumar
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru Secy.
Counsel for Revisionist :- Barmeshwar Nath Tiwari,Awadesh Tiwari,Gunjan Tiwari,Venu Gopal
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.
List revised.
None appeared for the revisionist even in the revised call except learned A.G.A. for the State.
Since this is criminal revision and cannot be dismissed in default therefore it is decided on merit.
The present criminal revision has been preferred by the revisionist with a prayer to allow this revision and set aside the judgment and order dated 09.03.2016 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 4, Ballia in Sessions Trial No. 097/ 15 State of U.P. Vs. Vinay Singh and Others Crime No. 02 of 2015 under Sections 392, 302, 201 I.P.C., Police Station Reoti, District Ballia and declare the revisionist to be a juvenile on the date of the commission of the alleged offence and further be pleased to direct the respondent to send the revisionist before the Juvenile Justice Board, Ballia for his trial as a juvenile and further also prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the Sessions Court, Ballia to provide proper opportunity to him to lead evidence in support of his claim of juvenility or to pass any other and further order which this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
This criminal revision was filed against the order passed by Additional Sessions Judge on 09.03.2016 in S.T. No. 97 of 2015 by which his claim of juvenility was rejected by the learned court and his age was determined more than 19 years on the basis of medical examination report while discarding the date of birth as recorded in educational record.
It is contended by learned A.G.A. that in this case school leaving certificate of Class Eighth said to be passed by the revisionist was produced before the learned court concerned as proof of age but during inquiry it was found that the school where the revisionist was said to get education was not in existence at that time, as a result it was not accepted as genuine. The age of the revisionist was found to be determined by Medical Board in which it was more than 19 years that was the reason his claim for juvenility was rejected.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submission made by learned A.G.A., perusal of record, the order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge on 09.03.2016 and perusal of record it appears that school leaving certificate was filed before the learned court concerned as a proof of age but that school was not in existence, as a result an application was moved by father of the revisionist to get his age determined medically on the basis of which he was medically examined and his age was found more than 19 years on the basis of which his claim for juvenility was rejected. There appears no any illegality or impropriety in the order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge while rejecting the claim of juvenility of the revisionist but this revision being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly, this revision is dismissed.
Order Date :- 19.12.2023
Suraj Srivastav
