Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1073 (ALL)

NIHAL v. STATE OF U. P.

2013-04-10

ASHOK SRIVASTAVA

body2013
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Ashok Srivastava, J.—I have heard learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned AGA and perused the records. The brief facts of the case are that an FIR under Sections 302/34 was registered at police station Kotwali, Pilibhit in which the revisionist was also named. In due course he moved an application that he be declared a juvenile and after consideration of his contentions his plea of juvenility was accepted and he was declared as juvenile keeping in view the date of alleged murder. Thereafter his case was referred to the Board. The revisionist moved a bail application under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (for short the Act) before the learned Board who after considering the same rejected it vide its order dated 28.3.2012. Feeling aggrieved by such order an appeal under Section 52 of the Act was filed. After hearing both the parties the appeal was dismissed on 20.4.2012. Feeling aggrieved by this order the present revision under Section 53 of the Act has been filed. 2. The report of the District Probationary Officer is available as Annexure SA-1 of the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the revisionist on 7.1.2013. I have perused this report. From perusal of this report it is evident that it has been prepared in a most cursory manner and without application of mind by the District Probationary Officer, Pilibhit. It appears that he has discharged his liability just by filling-in the vacant columns of a cyclostyled or Xerox copy of form number IX of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007. From perusal of such report it does not transpire that the District Probationary Officer has taken pains to visit the required places and collect required informations regarding the nature, conduct details of the circumstances (under which the child is living) and behaviour of the juvenile. It appears that in a routine manner he has filled-in the said form and submitted it to the Board. Such attitude and sense of negligence in discharge of his official duty on the part of the District Probationary Officer, Pilibhit is not desirable. Law casts upon him a very important and noble duty in respect of juveniles and the District Probationary Officer should have realized the importance of such responsibility, but he has failed. 3. I have perused the order passed by the Board. Law casts upon him a very important and noble duty in respect of juveniles and the District Probationary Officer should have realized the importance of such responsibility, but he has failed. 3. I have perused the order passed by the Board. The learned Board has also committed serious error in not directing the District Probationary Officer to submit a complete and detailed report in respect of the juvenile. He has been swayed away by the gravity of the offence and did not care to ensure that a complete report as desired under the Rules should be submitted to it by the District Probationary Officer. From the order of the learned Board it appears that he has noticed various infirmities as occurring in the report of the District Probationary Officer but he has read all those infirmities against the juvenile. It appears that the learned Board who is virtually a Court forgot its powers to compel the District Probationary Officer to submit a complete report in respect of the juvenile. The learned Board has chosen to adopt a short-cut way to dispose of the bail application moved before it under Section 12 of the Act. 4. The conduct of the learned Sessions Judge who disposed of the appeal under Section 52 of the Act is in no way better. In a cursory manner he has upheld the findings of the Board and failed to detect various illegalities present in the order of the Board. He should have examined the order of the Board cautiously while deciding the appeal under Section 52 of the Act. 5. The purpose of enacting the Act of 2000 is for the welfare of the juvenile. Therefore, it is the responsibility of the Board and Appellate Court and also of the District Probationary Officer to discharge their respective duties with seriousness and in a responsible manner. It was the duty of all the three to discharge such responsibility with care and caution. It is true that a juvenile should not be kept unnecessarily in a protective home but at the same time it is equally important that he should not be exploited, after his release, by criminals and unscrupulous persons of the society, who may use the juvenile for their own benefit. It is true that a juvenile should not be kept unnecessarily in a protective home but at the same time it is equally important that he should not be exploited, after his release, by criminals and unscrupulous persons of the society, who may use the juvenile for their own benefit. It is also to be looked into whether the mother and father of such juvenile are competent enough to have proper control over such child and if it is found that they can not discharge their duty towards the juvenile in a proper way they cannot be given the custody of the child. In such circumstances it is better to keep the juvenile in the protection of the State. 6. In the instant case I find that the irregularity started at the very root of the matter. The report of the District Probationary Officer is defective, incomplete and irresponsible. In these circumstances this Court has been left with no option but to quash both the orders passed by the Board and the lower Appellate Court. Accordingly the revision is allowed. The impugned orders are quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Board to dispose of the matter afresh after obtaining a complete and detailed report in respect of the juvenile. The District Probationary Officer is directed to read the relevant provisions of the Act and the Rules and prepare a complete and detailed report in respect of the juvenile and submit the same to the Board within a period of 10 days from the date he receives a copy of this order. After receiving the report of the District Probationary Officer the Board shall dispose of the bail application of the juvenile moved before it under Section 12 of the Act within a period of 15 days after hearing all concerned. 7. Let a copy of this order be sent forthwith to the District Probationary Officer, Pilibhit for compliance. Let a copy of this order be also sent to the District Magistrate, Pilibhit who will also ensure that the District Probationary Officer, Pilibhit submits his report as directed above by this Court. ——————