Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 581 (PNJ)

Altaf v. State of Haryana

2013-05-06

Mehinder Singh Sullar

body2013
JUDGMENT Mr. Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.:- Tersely, the facts and material, which need a necessary mention, for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy involved in the instant petition and emanating from the record, is that initially, in the wake of trial and taking into consideration the evidence on record, the Juvenile Justice Board, convicted the petitioners-convicts for commission of offence punishable under Sections 354 IPC vide impugned judgment of conviction dated 04.11.2011. However, their services were placed at the disposal of the Municipal Committee for six months for community service by way of impugned order of sentence dated 12.11.2011. 2. Aggrieved thereby the appeal filed by the petitioners was dismissed as well by the Appellate Court by virtue of impugned judgment dated 15.2.2013. 3. The petitioners-convicts still did not feel satisfy and preferred the instant revision petition to challenge the impugned judgments of conviction and order of sentence, invoking the provisions of Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 4. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners, having gone through the record with his valuable assistance and after deep consideration of the matter, to my mind there is no merit in the instant petition. 5. At the very outset learned counsel did not challenge the impugned judgments of conviction. However, he has contended with some amount of vehemence that the Juvenile Justice Board has wrongly placed the services of the petitioners at the disposal of the Municipal Committee for six months. 6. Ex-facie the argument of learned counsel that since the Juvenile Justice Board has illegally placed the services of the petitioners at the disposal of the Committee for six months, so the impugned order is liable to be set aside, is not only devoid of merit but misplaced as well. 7. As is evident from the record that the petitioners-convicts were convicted for the commission of offence punishable under Section 354 IPC. Taking into consideration the report of Probation Officer to the effect that the petitioners-convicts are in the habit of quarreling in the village and repeatedly quarreled with the teachers, revenue officials etc. and relatable factors, the indicated Board has rightly placed their services at disposal of the Municipal Committee for a period of six months. Taking into consideration the report of Probation Officer to the effect that the petitioners-convicts are in the habit of quarreling in the village and repeatedly quarreled with the teachers, revenue officials etc. and relatable factors, the indicated Board has rightly placed their services at disposal of the Municipal Committee for a period of six months. Section 15(i) of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the Act’) postulates that where the Board is satisfied that juvenile has committed the offence, the Board may if it so thinks fit order the juvenile to perform such community services. 8. Not only that the matter was again re-examined. All the contentions now sought to be urged by learned counsel for the petitioners, have already been duly considered and negatived by the Appellate Court by virtue of impugned judgment dated 15.2.2013, which in substance is as under :- “15. Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that in this case, the prosecution has failed to examine the Investigating Officer and therefore, on this score, the prosecution case is not well proved and the appellants deserve acquittal. However, in the case in hand, the examination of Investigating Officer is not material because he is not the eye witness. The prosecution case has to be decided on the basis of evidence of prosecutrix and other eye witnesses and if the evidence of such witnesses is found reliable, the conviction of juveniles can be based upon such trustworthy testimonies. Therefore, on this score also, the prosecution case cannot be doubted. 16. Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that the directions of the learned Board to the appellants to render services like peon in Municipal Committee, Ferozepur Jhirka is against the statutory provisions of the Act. As per Section 15(1)(c) of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (for short the Act) where the Board is satisfied that a juvenile has committed the offence, the Board may, if it so thinks fit, order the juvenile to perform community service. Learned Board keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, convicted both the juveniles and placed them under the control and protection of Municipal Committee. Learned Board keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, convicted both the juveniles and placed them under the control and protection of Municipal Committee. Ferozepur Jhirka for a period of six months and Head of Department was directed to provide work to both the convicts from 12.00 pm to 6.00 pm daily either like peon purposes or for the brooming purposes in the Municipal Committee and he was also directed to take attendance of the convicts daily as per law. The Head of Department was also directed to send report every month to the Probation Officer-cum-SDM, Nuh. The Probation Officer was also directed to report after every month before the Board regarding acts, conduct and behaviour of the convicts. The Probation Officer was given liberty to give any direction to the Head of Municipal Committee, Ferozepur Jhirka in respect of both the convicts for execution of the order of the Board. The Head of Municipal Committee was also given liberty to grant 10 leaves to each convict in six months to be forwarded to the Probation Officer. The aforesaid sentence is in the nature of performing of community service. Both the juveniles were involved in abominable acts and deserve some sort of reformation so that they may not indulge in such activities in future. Hence, no fault can be found with the order of learned Board for directing aforesaid services to be rendered by the Juveniles in the Municipal Committee, Ferozepur Jhirka. 9. Meaning thereby, the Courts below have appreciated the matter in the right perspective and recorded the cogent grounds in this respect. Learned counsel did not point out any material/reasons, much less cogent, so as to warrant any interference in the impugned judgments. Such impugned judgments, containing valid reasons, cannot possibly be interfered with by this Court in exercise of limited revisional jurisdiction of this Court, unless and until the same are illegal, perverse and without jurisdiction. Since no such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners, so the impugned judgment is hereby maintained in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 10. No other legal point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the petitioners. 11. In the light of aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant petition is hereby dismissed as such. ---------0.B.S.0------------