Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1858 (ALL)

Narendra Prasad v. State of U. P.

2015-07-10

VIJAY LAKSHMI

body2015
JUDGMENT Vijay Lakshmi, J. The instant criminal revision has been preferred against the order dated 29.06.2015, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, District Maharajganj in Criminal Misc. Application No. 57 of 2015 (State Versus Rajendra & Punnu) in Case Crime No. 225 of 2015, under Sections 363, 366A, 376 I.P.C. and 3/4 POCSO Act, P.S. Nichlaul, District Maharajganj, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge has declared the opposite party no. 2 as a juvenile in conflict with law. 2. Heard learned counsel for the revisionists; learned A.G.A. representing the State and perused the record. 3. Learned counsel for the revisionist has challenged the legality and correctness of the order impugned by contending that the court below has passed the order in an arbitrary manner without appreciating the evidence available on record and ignoring the provisions of Rule 12(3) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007. Learned counsel has contended that the opposite party no. 2 had prepared forged documents for the purpose of taking the benefit of Section 7A of Juvenile Justice Act, but the court below, without applying its judicial mind and without keeping in view this aspect of the matter, has passed the impugned order, which is liable to be set aside. 4. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the revision by arguing that the court below while declaring the opposite party no. 2 as a juvenile, has placed reliance on the recent judgments of the Apex Court rendered in Jarnail Singh vs State Of Haryana 2013 (3) JIC 191 and Ranjeet Goswami vs State Of Jharkhand; (2014) 1 SCC (Crl.) 490. 5. A perusal of the impugned order dated 29.06.2015 shows that the court below has fully complied with the provisions of Rule 12(3) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 and considering the discrepancy in the age of the opposite party no. 2 mentioned in his educational certificate, family register and voter list and in absence of his High School Certificate or Birth Certificate has directed for his medical examination. 6. Under these circumstances, if the court below has relied on the medical evidence placing reliance on the law laid down by the apex court in Jarnail Singh's case (supra) and has declared the opposite party no. 2, a juvenile in conflict with law, there appears no illegality or irregularity in the order impugned. 6. Under these circumstances, if the court below has relied on the medical evidence placing reliance on the law laid down by the apex court in Jarnail Singh's case (supra) and has declared the opposite party no. 2, a juvenile in conflict with law, there appears no illegality or irregularity in the order impugned. The revision appears to have no force and it is liable to be dismissed at the admissions stage itself. The revision is accordingly dismissed.