Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 156 (HP)

State of Himachal Pradesh. v. Aquib Khan.

2014-03-06

DHARAM CHAND CHAUDHARY

body2014
JUDGMENT Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J.(Oral): Challenge herein is to an order passed by learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Kullu in S.T. No.14-1/2012 whereby the proceedings in a case registered against the respondent, a juvenile in conflict with law under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act” for short) has been ordered to be terminated and the respondent acquitted. The legality and validity of the impugned order has been assailed on the grounds that the respondent, who allegedly committed a heinous offence under the Act, has erroneously been acquitted contrary to the provisions under the Rules. 2. The juvenile in conflict with law was apprehended by the police of Police Station, Bhuntar, District Kullu on 13.6.2012 around 10.15 p.m. at Sharabai and during the search of rucksack, he was carrying, contraband, i.e. charas weighing 43 gms. allegedly recovered from him. After the search and seizure, the Investigating Officer, ASI Vivek Sharma prepared a rukka and it was sent to police station for registration of the case. Consequently, FIR No.95/12 came to be registered against him under Section 20 of the Act. His custody was entrusted to ASI Roop Lal, Protection Officer under the Juvenile Act and the intimation qua commission of offence under Section 20 of the Act by the juvenile in conflict with law was given to his parents. His parents came to the police station alongwith other relatives and produced his date of birth certificate and the copy of ration card etc. The custody of the juvenile in conflict with law was entrusted to his father at Sharabai. Later on a report under Section 173, Cr.P.C. was filed against him in the Court of Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Kullu on 24.7.2012. He appeared before the Court on 25.7.2012 and was directed to furnish surety bond in the sum of ‘5,000/-. He furnished the bond and his custody was handed over to his father. 3.Subsequently, notice of accusation was put to him on 17.10.2012, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4.On the next date, the prosecution, however, failed to produce the evidence and, as such, the case was adjourned to 27.12.2012. He furnished the bond and his custody was handed over to his father. 3.Subsequently, notice of accusation was put to him on 17.10.2012, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4.On the next date, the prosecution, however, failed to produce the evidence and, as such, the case was adjourned to 27.12.2012. The same however, was taken-up by the Board on 22nd January, 2013 and the juvenile in conflict with law acquitted by terminating the proceedings against him under Rule 13(7) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007. 5.As provided under Sub-Rule (6) of Rule 13 ibid, the proceedings against the juvenile in conflict with law are required to be completed within four months from the date of first summary inquiry conducted by the Board. In the case in hand, the juvenile in conflict with law appeared before the Court for the first time on 25th July, 2012. The matter thereafter remained listed on two dates, i.e. 23.8.2012 and 19.10.2012 for putting notice of accusation to him. On both dates, he being not present was exempted from appearance pursuant to the order passed on an application filed by learned defence counsel. The notice of accusation could only be put to him on 17.10.2012 and the case was adjourned to 20.11.2012 for recording the prosecution evidence. On that day, service of summons could not be effected upon the prosecution witnesses, hence, they being unserved could not be examined. On the next date, i.e. 27.12.2012 fixed for recording the prosecution evidence, the case could not be taken-up, may be on account of the Principal Magistrate of the Board either on leave or out of station. However, the same was taken-up on 22nd January, 2013 for effective hearing. It is on that day, after discussing the provisions contained under Rule 13(7) of the Rules ibid, the proceedings were ordered to be terminated and the juvenile in conflict with law acquitted of the charge. 6.It is in this backdrop, learned Additional Advocate General and learned counsel representing the juvenile in conflict with law have been heard in this matter. 7.Apparently, the inquiry within the stipulated period could not be completed on account of the absence of the juvenile in conflict with law and his exemption from appearance before the Court below on two dates. 6.It is in this backdrop, learned Additional Advocate General and learned counsel representing the juvenile in conflict with law have been heard in this matter. 7.Apparently, the inquiry within the stipulated period could not be completed on account of the absence of the juvenile in conflict with law and his exemption from appearance before the Court below on two dates. Even after putting notice of accusation to the juvenile, on two dates the evidence could not be recorded as the witnesses were not served, whereas, on the date next thereto fixed, the matter could not be taken-up either on account of the Principal Magistrate of Board on leave or out of station. On the next date, i.e. 22nd January, 2013 the impugned order has been passed. 8.It is seen that not only the provisions in the Rules, ibid, but Section 14 of the Act also provides that an inquiry against the juvenile in conflict with law has to be completed within a period of four months from the date of its commencement unless the period is extended by the Board for the reasons to be recorded in writing. I fail to understand as to how the present is a case heinous in nature when the contraband, allegedly ‘charas’ recovered from the possession of the juvenile in conflict with law weighing 43 gms. is a small quantity and under Section 20 of the Act, the maximum sentence against an offender for commission of such offence is only six months imprisonment. Otherwise also, the Juvenile Act is a beneficial legislation enacted with the sole idea to take care and protection of the juvenile in conflict with law. Therefore, on this score also, the case which pertains to the year 2012, ordered to be closed by learned Principal Magistrate in January, 2013 vide the order under challenge, it would not be appropriate to re-open the same. 9.I, therefore, find no illegality or infirmity in the order under challenge and same, as such, is up-held. The petition stands accordingly dismissed.