Allahabad High Court
Kundan Singh vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy./ ... on 14 July, 2023
Bench: Brij Raj Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:46019
Court No. - 27
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1262 of 2022
Revisionist :- Kundan Singh
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy./ Addl. Chief Secy. Home, Lko. And Another
Counsel for Revisionist :- Nadeem Murtaza,Anjani Kumar Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Arun Sinha,Riyaz Ahmad
Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh,J.
1. Heard Sri Nadeem Murtaza learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Riyaz Ahmad learned counsel for O.P. No.2 and the learned AGA for State.
2. This Court passed a detailed order on 7.12.2022 which is quoted below:-
"Heard Sri Nadeem Murtaza, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Alok Saran, learned A.G.A. for the State.
The instant criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist against the judgment and order dated 24.11.2022, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge POCSO Act, Lucknow in Criminal Appeal No.115/2022, Sandeep Kumar Yadav vs. State of U.P. and another, whereby the appeal filed on behalf of opposite party no.2 against the order dated 20.05.2022 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Lucknow in Case No.172/2021, arising out of Case Crime No.323/2015, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302, 504, 506, 120B, 34 I.P.C., Police Station Sarojninagar, District Lucknow was allowed and remanded back the matter to Juvenile Justice Board, Lucknow to decide the issue of juvenility of the present revisionist.
Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the impugned order dated 24.11.2022 has been passed in a casual and mechanical manner, without appreciating the fact that the Juvenile Justice Board, Lucknow which is competent to undertake the matters relating to juvenility of juvenile, had already declared the revisionist juvenile vide its order dated 20.05.2022. His further submission is that though there has been repeated allegation of alleged impersonation by the revisionist in getting the medical examination conducted and obtaining the alleged report in his favour, the learned lower appellate Court failed to appreciate the fact that it was based on the test(s) conducted on 01.04.2022/02.04.2022, which were done by Government Officials and a report by a board consisting of three doctors including one dental surgeon, one radiologist and one orthopedic surgeon each, who are not supposed to connive with the revisionist in order to extend some unwarranted benefit to the present revisionist. He has also submitted that the learned lower appellate Court also failed to appreciate that the finding of juvenility of the present revisionist stands corroborated by the fact that in a case emanating from a case bearing Case Crime No.327/2015, the present revisionist was declared juvenile and that order has never been assailed by the State and the same is still in existence. He, thus, submits that the impugned order dated 24.11.2022 is palpably illegal, which deserves to be set aside.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer, however, he has been unable to dispute the other factual submission advanced by learned counsel for the revisionist.
Having heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State and upon perusal of the records, the matter requires consideration.
Notice on behalf of the State has been accepted by learned A.G.A.
Issue notice to opposite party No.2, returnable at an early date.
Steps be taken three days week.
List in the week commencing 19.12.2022.
Meanwhile, impugned order dated 24.11.2022 shall not be given effect to qua the revisionist."
3. Notice was issued to O.P. No.2. Service of notice has been effected. Sri Riyaz Ahmad learned counsel for O.P. No.2 has filed short counter affidavit on 25.5.2023 mentioning therein that the O.P. No.2 does not want to dispute the juvenility of the accused revisionist because the accused revisionst has undergone medical examination and has been found to be a juvenile. The relevant paragraph-11 and 12 of the short counter affidavit of the O.P. No.2 is quoted below:-
"11. That the Opposite Party No.2 had gained knowledge from various sources that the Revisionist was a juvenile as on the date of the incident. Also the Opposite Party No.2 does not wish to dispute the juvenility of the Revisionist because the Revisionist has undergone medical examination and has been found to be a juvenile on the basis of the medical examination.
12. That it is most respectfully submitted that the Opposite Party No.2 does not want to dispute the juvenility of the Revisionist. Further, the Opposite Party No.2 will have no objection if the Revisionist is treated as a juvenile for the purpose of Case Crime No.323 of 2015 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302, 504, 506, 120B, 34 IPC registered at Police Station Sarojini Nagar, District Lucknow."
4. Since the opposite party No.2 is the aggrieved person and has filed appeal before the Court below and he does not dispute the juvenility of the accused revisionist and the cause of action at the moment does not survive.
5. In view of the aforesaid facts, I do not find any reason to keep the matter pending.
6. The revision is accordingly allowed. The judgment and order dated 24.11.2022 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge POCSO Act, Lucknow in Criminal Appeal No.1152022 (Sandeep Kumar yadav. Vs. State of U.P. & another) is set aside.
7. Let the file be consigned to record.
Order Date :- 14.7.2023
Rajneesh JR-PS/Divya)
