Jharkhand High Court
Udbhav Kumar Son Of Laxmi Narain ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 10 August, 2021
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No. 788 of 2012
Udbhav Kumar son of Laxmi Narain Prasad Ram, through Laxmi
Narain Prasad Ram (Father of petitioner) Resident of Bengabad, P.O.
and P.S. Bengabad, District Giridih ... ... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Opp. Party
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Petitioner : Mr. A.K. Kashyap, Senior Advocate
Mr. Anurag Kashyap, Advocate
Mrs. Supriya Dayal, Advocate
For the Opp. Party : Ms. Nehala Sharmin, A.P.P.
Through Video Conferencing
9/10.08.2021
1. Heard Mr. A.K. Kashyap, learned senior counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioner along with Mr. Anurag Kashyap and
Mrs. Supriya Dayal, Advocates.
2. Heard Ms. Nehala Sharmin, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the opposite party-State.
3. This revision application arises out of the judgment and order
dated 08.08.2012 passed by Principal Sessions Judge, Giridih in
Criminal Appeal No. 28 of 2012 dismissing the appeal and
confirming the judgment and order dated 28.02.2012 passed in
G.R. Case No. 1352/04, E. No. 47/12 by the Judicial Magistrate
and the Juvenile Justice Board, Giridih by which the petitioner
has been convicted under Sections 147/341/323/452/149 of
the Indian Penal Code and extended benefit of Section 4 of the
Probation of Offender's Act and released on furnishing bond
of Rs. 5000/- with two sureties of like amount to maintain
peace for a period of one year. Petitioner was however
acquitted of charges under Sections 148/307/379/149 of the
Indian Penal Code by the learned Trial Court.
4. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner Mr. A.K. Kashyap
submits that there are concurrent finding of facts recorded by
the learned courts below and accordingly he is confining his
prayer on short submission by referring to Section 24 of the
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act. He
submits that the petitioner was released by the learned
Juvenile Justice Board under Section 4 of the Probation of
Offenders Act and the learned appellate court has confirmed
the conviction and sentence of the petitioner and the aforesaid
release of the petitioner under Section 4 of the Probation of
Offenders Act. Learned counsel submits that considering the
fact that the petitioner was admittedly juvenile at the time of
occurrence and therefore he may be extended the benefit of
Section 24 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of
Children) Act dealing with removal of disqualification on
finding of an offence against the petitioner.
5. Upon this, learned counsel for the State on the other hand
submits that Section 24 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and
Protection of Children) Act, 2015 is the mandate of law.
Accordingly, no further observation is required to be made.
6. At this, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he does
not want press the present revision petition any further.
7. As the learned counsel for the petitioner does not want to press
the present revision petition any further and it is not in dispute
that Section 24 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of
Children) Act, 2015 is the mandate of law, no further
observation is required to be made. Accordingly, the present
revision petition is hereby disposed of as not pressed.
8. Let this order be communicated to the court concerned
through FAX.
9. Pending I.A., if any, stands dismissed as not pressed.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Binit/
