Allahabad High Court
X (Juvenile) vs State Of U.P. And Another on 11 October, 2023
Bench: Subhash Chandra Sharma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:198491
Court No. - 80
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 5098 of 2023
Revisionist :- X (Juvenile)
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Revisionist :- Yogesh Kumar Tiwari
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Mohit Kumar
Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for both the parties as well as learned AGA.
2. The present revision criminal revision has been preferred by the revisionist through his mother with a prayer to allow this revision and set-aside the judgment and order dated 03.04.2023 passed by Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Muzaffar Nagar in Case No. 113/09 of 2022 (State of U.P. Versus Shubham) arising out of Case Crime No. 115 of 2020, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 504, 302/34 of I.P.C., Police Station- Chhapar, District- Muzaffar Nagar.
3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that in this case, the revisionist made his claim before learned court of Sessions where his age was determined as 17 years 10 months and 11 days on the basis of matriculation certificate and the case was sent to learned J.J. Board for necessary action. It is further submitted that learned J.J. Board after making preliminary assessment passed an order dated 03.04.2023 and referred the case to the Children's Court for trial as an adult. It is further submitted that the case could not be referred to the Children's Court by the learned J.J. Board, as the trial was being conducted before the learned Court of Sessions who declared him to be juvenile, therefore, order passed by learned J.J. Board cannot be said to be lawful and based on facts of the case, but it is illegal, therefore, request to set aside the order passed by the learned J.J. Board and allow this criminal revision.
4. Learned counsel for opposite party as well as learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer as aforesaid and contended that in this case, the claim of juvenility was accepted by the learned Court of Sessions where regular trial was going on. When the revisionist was found to be above the age of 17 years and was held to be a child as per definition provided under the J.J. Act, this matter was sent back to the learned J.J. Board for further proceedings. Learned J.J. Board conducted preliminary assessment under Sections 15 and 18 of the J.J. Act and after taking information from the psychologist and from the CMO, it came to the conclusion that the revisionist was capable of knowing the nature of the act and also the consequences of commission of offence. On being satisfied by this fact, the learned J.J. Board passed the order in question on 03.04.2023 while referring the matter to the Children's Court for trial of the revisionist as an adult. This order cannot be said to be unlawful, but the present revision being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed.
5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for both the parties as well as learned A.G.A. for the State, the orders passed by the learned Court of Additional Sessions Judge and the learned J.J. Board, it appears that, the claim of juvenility was made during trial before learned Additional Sessions Judge who decided the claim and found the revisionist to be juvenile and aged about 17 years 10 months and 11 days. As a result, he was declared to be a child and his matter was separated from the case of other co-accused persons and it was sent to J.J. Board for further action. Learned J.J. Board made preliminary assessment of the revisionist with the help of psychologist and the CMO and on the basis of reports and the opinion as tendered regarding physical and mental condition of the revisionist and also his capacity of understanding, the nature and consequences of the offence, he passed the order dated 03.04.2023 for trial of the revisionist as an adult and referred the case to the learned Children's Court.
6. In this way, the order passed by learned J.J. Board, Muzaffar Nagar cannot be said to be unlawful and against the provisions of law, but the present revision being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed.
Order Date :- 11.10.2023
Anjali
