The bench presided by Justice Suresh Kumar Kait has passed judgement in the case titled Pawan Kumar Gupta v. State.
The High Court directed Assistant Court Master of the Court to send a message to the Advocate A.P. Singh, who had filed the petition. Accordingly, a text message on mobile phone of Advocate was sent.
Thereafter, in addition to the text message, Assistant Court Master (ACM) called on the numbers and his call was answered once but immediately disconnected and thereafter, his call went unanswered. Thereafter, even a mail was sent on his email address by the ACM.
The petitioner filed an application under Section 7A Juvenile Justice Board (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 ( J.J. Act) read with Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules 2007 for age determination of petitioner.
The defendants submitted that the application was not maintainable and a review petition filed on behalf of the petitioner before the Hon’ble Supreme Court seeking review was dismissed.
The Court held that once the convict has raised the plea of juvenility before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Supreme Court has rejected the same, it is now not open to the petitioner to file a fresh application under Section 7A of the J.J. Act before any Court.
The petitioner cannot be allowed to re-agitate this plea thereafter by filing an application under Section 7A of J.J. Act before any Court.
The court further held that the Supreme Court has categorically held that the Trial Court on the basis of the material placed before it, has rightly concluded that the petitioner is not a juvenile on the date of commission of the offence.
The Court stated “It is not in dispute that an Advocate files petition on the instructions of the petitioner. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner is a master of facts, however, it is presumed that the Advocate is well-aware of the law and the procedure. If the Advocate comes to know that any document which is illegal or not upto the mark, he may suggest the client not to place the same on the judicial file, for which the court may take adverse view.”
While dismissing the petition being not maintainable, the High Court further imposed a cost of ₹25,000/- upon A.P. Singh, Advocate who "played hide and seek with the Court and did not appear before this Court despite communications".
The said amount would be deposited in favour of Nirmal Chhaya, New Delhi for the welfare of destitute women and children.
Read the Judgment:
Share this Document :Picture Source :
