Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 377 (UTT)

Dheeraj Badoni v. State of Uttarakhand

2019-06-18

SHARAD KUMAR SHARMA

body2019
JUDGMENT : Sharad Kumar Sharma, J. This Revision, which has been preferred by the Revisionist invoking provisions contained under Section 401 of the Cr.P.C. to be read with 102 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2015. In order to elucidate the arguments, which has been extended by the learned counsel for the revisionist, it becomes necessary to deal with the extent of power the Revisional Court can exercise, while exercising its power under Section 401 to be read with Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2015. 2. The provisions contained under Section 401 as would be apparent from its language and intend, it confers the powers on the High Court to either to take su moto action or to take an action when it comes to its’ “knowledge”. The High Court may at its’ “discretion” can exercise any of its of powers conferred on a court of appeal under Sections 386, 389, 390 and 391 of the Cr.P.C. or on a Court of Session by Section 307. What is relevant for the High Court to exercise its revisional power under 401 is the knowledge of a circumstances and exercise of its discretion in order to meet its objective of being custodian of law. Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code reads as under :- “401. High Court’s powers of revision. - (1) In the case of any proceeding the record of which has been called for by itself or which otherwise comes to its knowledge, the High Court may, in its discretion, exercise any of the powers conferred on a Court of Appeal by sections 386, 389, 390 and 391 or on a Court of Session by section 307 and, when the Judges composing the Court of revision are equally divided in opinion, the case shall be disposed of in the manner provided by section 392. (2) No order under this section shall be made to the prejudice of the accused or other person unless he has had an opportunity of being heard either personally or by pleader in his own defence. (3) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to authorise a High Court to convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction. (2) No order under this section shall be made to the prejudice of the accused or other person unless he has had an opportunity of being heard either personally or by pleader in his own defence. (3) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to authorise a High Court to convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction. (4) Where under this Code an appeal lies and no appeal is brought, no proceeding by way of revision shall be entertained at the instance of the party who could have appealed. (5) Where under this Code an appeal lies but an application for revision has been made to the High Court by any person and the High Court is satisfied that such application was made under the erroneous belief that no appeal lies thereto and that it is necessary in the interests of justice so to do, the High Court may treat the application for revision as a petition of appeal and deal with the same accordingly.” 3. Similar is the legislative intent, which has been expressed by Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice Act, under which too, the present revision has been preferred, which too, almost intends to postulate the same intention and extent of powers which the High Court can exercise while exercising its revisional powers against an order or a motion or an application which has been perceived under the provision contained under Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2015. Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice Act reads as under :- “102 – Revision. - The High Court may, at any time, either on its own motion or on an application received in this behalf, call for the record of any proceeding in which any Committee or Board or Children's Court, or Court has passed an order, for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality or propriety of any such order and may pass such order in relation thereto as it thinks fit: Provided that the High Court shall not pass an order under this section prejudicial to any person without giving him a reasonable opportunity of being heard.” 4. In order to further deal with the provisions of law, which has been argued by the learned counsel for the revisionist, it becomes incumbent for this Court to deal with the factual backdrop under which this revision has reached to this Court where the revisionist has questioned part of the order dated 16th May, 2019, as rendered by the Juvenile Justice Board, Deharadun in Case Crime No. 75 of 2019, for the offence under Sections 279, 338, 201, 304, 120-B I.P.C., registered at Police Station Cantt, Dehradun, State Vs. Subhaan Ahmad, to the extent the Juvenile Justice Board, while proceeding against the juvenile and based on the statement on which the direction has been issued by the Juvenile Justice Board on 16.05.2019 vide its impugned order to the following effect, which is impugned in the present revision :- ^^bl ekeys esa cksMZ dk ;g Hkh er gS fd ukckfyx ls O;olkf;d okgu pykus dh ifjfLFkfr esa eksVj okgu vf/kfu;e Ákf/kdj.k ds ekeys esa Hkh ekfyd lh/ks rkSj ij ?kk;y efgyk dh gR;k ds fy, ftEesnkj gSA vr% cksMZ foospu dks vknsf'kr djrk gS fd og ekeys esa okgu ekfyd ds fo:} gR;k ds "kM;a= vkSj xSj bjknru gR;k ds fy, dk;Zokgh djsa vkSj cksMZ ckyd ds fo:} /kkjk 279] 338] 201] 304] 120ch Hkk0n0la0 ds ekeys dk laKku ysrk gSA** 5. The foundation of argument of the learned counsel for the revisionist is the extent of power, which could be exercised by the Juvenile Justice Board in the light of the intention and purposes as contained under Sections 4 and 8 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. Section 4 of the said Act deals with the constitution of the Juvenile Justice Board, hence, as far as the constitution part is concerned, that is not in debate or controversy nor would it have an effect or bearing on the part of the order, which is put to challenge because there is no such question raised with regard to the competence or the constitution of Juvenile Justice Board as constituted under Section 4 of the said Act. 6. The stress of argument which has been made by the learned counsel for the revisionist is to the provisions as contained under Section 8 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015. For said purpose, it would be necessary to quote with the provisions contained under Section 8 of the Act. 6. The stress of argument which has been made by the learned counsel for the revisionist is to the provisions as contained under Section 8 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015. For said purpose, it would be necessary to quote with the provisions contained under Section 8 of the Act. “8. Powers, functions and responsibilities of the Board. - (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force but save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, the Board constituted for any district shall have the power to deal exclusively with all the proceedings under this Act, relating to children in conflict with law, in the area of jurisdiction of such Board. (2) The powers conferred on the Board by or under this Act may also be exercised by the High Court and the Children's Court, when the proceedings come before them under section 19 or in appeal, revision or otherwise. (2) The powers conferred on the Board by or under this Act may also be exercised by the High Court and the Children's Court, when the proceedings come before them under section 19 or in appeal, revision or otherwise. (3) The functions and responsibilities of the Board shall include - (a) ensuring the informed participation of the child and the parent or guardian, in every step of the process; (b) ensuring that the child's rights are protected throughout the process of apprehending the child, inquiry, aftercare and rehabilitation; (c) ensuring availability of legal aid for the child through the legal services institutions; (d) wherever necessary the Board shall provide an interpreter or translator, having such qualifications, experience, and on payment of such fees as may be prescribed, to the child if he fails to understand the language used in the proceedings; (e) directing the Probation Officer, or in case a Probation Officer is not available to the Child Welfare Officer or a social worker, to undertake a social investigation into the case and submit a social investigation report within a period of fifteen days from the date of first production before the Board to ascertain the circumstances in which the alleged offence was committed; (f) adjudicate and dispose of cases of children in conflict with law in accordance with the process of inquiry specified in section 14; (g) transferring to the Committee, matters concerning the child alleged to be in conflict with law, stated to be in need of care and protection at any stage, thereby recognising that a child in conflict with law can also be a child in need of care simultaneously and there is a need for the Committee and the Board to be both involved; (h) disposing of the matter and passing a final order that includes an individual care plan for the child's rehabilitation, including follow up by the Probation Officer or the District Child Protection Unit or a member of a non-governmental organisation, as may be required; (i) conducting inquiry for declaring fit persons regarding care of children in conflict with law; (j) conducting at least one inspection visit every month of residential facilities for children in conflict with law and recommend action for improvement in quality of services to the District Child Protection Unit and the State Government; (k) order the police for registration of first information report for offences committed against any child in conflict with law, under this Act or any other law for the time being in force, on a complaint made in this regard; (l) order the police for registration of first information report for offences committed against any child in need of care and protection, under this Act or any other law for the time being in force, on a written complaint by a Committee in this regard; (m) conducting regular inspection of jails meant for adults to check if any child is lodged in such jails and take immediate measures for transfer of such a child to the observation home; and (n) any other function as may be prescribed.” 7. The argument of the learned counsel for the revisionist is that the direction which has been issued by the Juvenile Justice Board by part of the impugned order on 16th May, 2019, directing the Investigating Officer to proceed with the cases under Sections 279, 338, 201, 304, 120-B I.P.C. as against the revisionist, who happens to be major, the contention of the counsel is that no proceedings would be directed to be carried against him on the directions given by the Juvenile Justice Board since being outside the ambit of the power vested with it under Section 8 of the Act. 8. The power under Section 8 of the Act lays down the modalities as to how the Juvenile Justice Board would function and will regulate its proceedings in relation to the child who is in conflict with law. In the proceedings which has drawn before the Court below, the factual backdrop which has arisen for consideration is that the child was engaged by the revisionist in driving a commercial vehicle, which was being utilized by the present revisionist, who was operating a courier company and the vehicle, which was being driven by the juvenile at the relevant time was the loader which has met with an accident on 27th April, 2019, and as a consequence of which, an aged lady of 60 years was injured seriously. 9. Though, it reflects that as per the findings which has been recorded in the impugned order that Subhaan Ahmad, initially took the injured lady to the hospital in order to provide her first aid, but when the information about the said accident was communicated by him, i.e. juvenile Subham Ahmad to the present revisionist who was the owner of the vehicle and who wanted somehow the incident which would otherwise would be falling within the domain of investigation of the Police Officer to be sidetracked, it has been observed in the impugned order that the revisionist, owner of the vehicle has instructed Subhaan Ahmad, the juvenile on phone, who was his employee engaged in driving the loader to leave the lady at unknown place and to escape from the said place. It is this part, which has been recorded based on the statements of juvenile, on which, the contention of the learned counsel for the revisionist is that the said statement in the light of the provisions contained under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. cannot be taken cognizance of by the Juvenile Justice Board for the purposes of issuing any directive or taking cognizance of the proceedings as against the present revisionist. 10. He further submits that the proceedings, which was held on 16th May, 2019, before the Juvenile Justice Board, was beyond the ambit and scope of the preliminary assessment, which was required to be undergone by the Board for the purposes of drawing a conclusion as to whether there was an involvement of a juvenile in the commission of the offence or not. 11. With all diligence at command to this Court, this Court is of the view that the modalities of proceedings which is provided under Section 15 of the Act, to be carried against the juvenile will have no bearing because the direction, which has been impugned in the Revision was a direction, which was given by the Board for taking an appropriate action by the Investigating Officer as against the revisionist, who was a major and whose any activity or a possibility of involvement of commission of offence, no preliminary assessment as contemplated under Section 15 would be required to be taken or could have been taken by the Juvenile Justice Board. Hence, the procedure provided under Section 15 of the Act will not be applicable nor it was required to be resorted to by the Juvenile Justice Board by issuing any observation with regard to the direction to the Investigating Officer, for proceedings against the major, who otherwise does not fall to be within the ambit of juvenile as defined under the Act and, hence, Section 15 will not at all govern the directives which has been given by the Juvenile Justice Board by the order dated 16th May, 2019. 12. 12. Reverting back to the intention of the legislature as contained under Section 401 to be read with Section 102, which deals with and fall to be with the ambit of powers of the High Court while exercising its revisional jurisdiction, the basic intention behind the legislature for incorporating Sections 401 and 102 was to ensure that whenever it comes to knowledge of the Court, through any mode of knowledge, which has not been detailed in the provisions of law itself, the knowledge may be attributed from any source to the Court where the High Court if based on the material which has been brought on record in any proceedings comes to the conclusion that the direction which has been given or any additional directions is required to be given to meet the ends of justice, being the custodian of law, the High Court can extend its power under Section 401 to be read with Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice Act to meet the ends of justice. 13. The argument of the learned counsel for the revisionist in the light of the provisions contained under Section 23 of the Act, with regard to that there cannot be any joint proceedings in relation to an act of a child who is in conflict with law vis-à-vis a person who is not a child and is a major, it is this ratio or law as provided in the statute, which was sought to be protected by the direction which was given by the Juvenile Justice Board impugned in the Revision and which was as per the direction was exclusively left at the prerogative of the investigating officer that if at all he feels, circumstances require to take congnizance of any of the offence as referred in the impugned order as against the revisionist, it was left open for the Investigating Officer to take an independent decision and action. The question which arises for consideration before this Court and as argued by the learned counsel for the revisionist is that whether such type of a direction could at all be given by the Juvenile Justice Board or not looking to its ambit of power provided under Section 8 of the Act, to which, reference has been made by the counsel for the revisionist. 14. 14. This Court is of the view that the observations made by the impugned order dated 16th May, 2019, directing the Investigating Officer to take an action against revisionist, who was a major, rather intended to meet the objective as contemplated under Section 23 of the Act itself, as he could not have been tried by the Juvenile Justice Board and furthermore, in the wider interest of justice, simultaneously, it was to be ensured that he is not left scot-free, when as per the version on record, he too had shown to have his involvement in the commissioning of the crime. 15. The counsel for the revisionist has made reference to the provisions contained under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. as to upto what extent the statement which has been recorded by the juvenile in the proceedings before the Court could be taken congnizance of for the purposes of issuing of a direction to the Investigating Officer for taking an action against the revisionist who admittedly was not a juvenile. 16. The provisions contained under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. constitutes to be part of Chapter 12, which bears a heading of Information to the police and their power to investigate. The implication of Section 164, which the counsel for the revisionist intends to draw is from the view point that the statement recorded by the juvenile before the Juvenile Justice Board, for the purposes of issuing the directions to the investigating officer could not be taken congnizance except when the memorandum is prepared by the Board for taking an action. The technicalities of law, which has been sought to be argued at this stage, this Court is of the view that it is premature. The reason being the source of drawing the proceedings against the revisionist based on the observation made by the Juvenile Justice Board, it is not prohibited under Section 8 of the Juvenile Justice Act, and even the observation in relation to the statement which was given by the juvenile pertaining to the communication which was made in between juvenile and revisionist, it is not a positive conclusion which has been drawn by the Juvenile Justice Board, pertaining to or having any bearing on the conclusive decision with regard to the involvement of the revisionist in commission of the offence as referred therein. The direction given by the Juvenile Justice Board was simply intending to ensure that if at all there happens to be even the remotest possibility of any involvement of the revisionist in commission of the offence, he should be not left scot-free and that is why the direction was issued to the Investigating Officer, that if there happens to be any involvement of his in the commission of an offence as narrated hereinabove, an appropriate action could be taken by the Investigating Officer, meaning thereby, any positive action of drawing any criminal proceedings against the revisionist is yet to be taken by the police authority by invoking the provisions contained under the Cr.P.C. Hence, it could be said the filing of the revision is in anticipation of a future act to be taken if at all it was required, such a direction is not a decision in itself which can be made revisable. 17. The counsel for the revisionist has placed reliance on a judgment as reported in (2011) 2 SCC 490 , Rabindra Kumar Pal alias Dara Singh Vs. Republic of India, and in particular, the reference which has been made by the learned counsel for the revisionist is to the contents of para 53 and 64 of the judgment which is quoted hereunder :- “53. It was submitted that confessions of various accused persons, namely, A9, A11 and A12 under Section 164 Code of Criminal Procedure, cannot be considered to be voluntary on account of the fact that all the co-accused persons were produced before the Magistrate from police custody and were remanded back to police custody. It was further highlighted that accused No. 14 was produced from police custody for recording his confession while A 13 made his statement when he was on bail and in no case the Magistrate ensured the accused persons that if they decline they would not be sent to police custody. It was further highlighted that illiterate accused persons cannot be expected to have knowledge of finest nuances of procedure. It was pointed that besides all confessions being exculpatory and made after conspiracy ceases to be operative are inadmissible. Finally, it was stated that Section 164 Code of Criminal Procedure requires faithful compliance and failure impairs their evidentiary value. 64. It was further highlighted that illiterate accused persons cannot be expected to have knowledge of finest nuances of procedure. It was pointed that besides all confessions being exculpatory and made after conspiracy ceases to be operative are inadmissible. Finally, it was stated that Section 164 Code of Criminal Procedure requires faithful compliance and failure impairs their evidentiary value. 64. The following principles emerge with regard to Section 164 Code of Criminal Procedure.: (i) The provisions of Section 164 Code of Criminal Procedure must be complied with not only in form, but in essence. (ii) Before proceeding to record the confessional statement, a searching enquiry must be made from the accused as to the custody from which he was produced and the treatment he had been receiving in such custody in order to ensure that there is no scope for doubt of any sort of extraneous influence proceeding from a source interested in the prosecution. (iii) A Magistrate should ask the accused as to why he wants to make a statement which surely shall go against his interest in the trial. (iv) The maker should be granted sufficient time for reflection. (v) He should be assured of protection from any sort of apprehended torture or pressure from the police in case he declines to make a confessional statement. (vi) A judicial confession not given voluntarily is unreliable, more so, when such a confession is retracted, the conviction cannot be based on such retracted judicial confession. (vii) Non-compliance of Section 164 Code of Criminal Procedure goes to the root of the Magistrate's jurisdiction to record the confession and renders the confession unworthy of credence. (viii) During the time of reflection, the accused should be completely out of police influence. The judicial officer, who is entrusted with the duty of recording confession, must apply his judicial mind to ascertain and satisfy his conscience that the statement of the accused is not on account of any extraneous influence on him. (ix) At the time of recording the statement of the accused, no police or police official shall be present in the open court. (x) Confession of a co-accused is a weak type of evidence. (xi) Usually the Court requires some corroboration from the confessional statement before convicting the accused person on such a statement.” 18. (ix) At the time of recording the statement of the accused, no police or police official shall be present in the open court. (x) Confession of a co-accused is a weak type of evidence. (xi) Usually the Court requires some corroboration from the confessional statement before convicting the accused person on such a statement.” 18. In the case, in question, where the scope of the statement recorded under Section 164 was taken into consideration, it was with regard to the confession made and the ratio propounded therein as to whether the statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. requires a faithful compliance or a failure of its rightful interpretation for the purposes of settling an allegation of criminal nature as against the accused person, it was a case where a full fledged trial under Section 302 was being a subject matter of consideration in the light of the confessional statement made under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. Hence, the ratio as laid down in para 53 of the said judgment, with regard to the consideration of the statement is in altogether under a different set of circumstances, which has got no nexus so far it relates to a challenge given to the part of the impugned order under challenge in the present revision. 19. Even let us deal with the contents of para 64 of the said judgment, on which, reliance was place by the learned counsel for the revisionist, which was laying down the wider principles which was to be followed at the time when a trial is being considered and conducted in the light of the statements made under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. and upto what extent the statement is to be taken into consideration for settling down the charge levelled against the accused person who was being tried for it. 20. 20. In any of the modalities laid down in para 64 of the said judgment, will not cover the case at hand for the reason being that the proceedings of the criminal nature as against the revisionist was yet to be drawn or taken cognizance of based on the observation, which was made by the Juvenile Justice Board, pertaining to the set of allegation which has been levelled against the revisionist based on the statement of Juvenile which according to the counsel for the revisionist could not have been taken congnizance of by the Juvenile Justice Board, while issuing direction for initiating the proceedings against the revisionist. 21. This Court being conscious of the extent of powers which has been conferred on the High Court under Section 401 of the Cr.P.C., in exercise of its revisional power, which does not limits its inherent jurisdiction and its discretion that when from the material which has been placed on record may it be from any source which is immaterial, whatsoever, if the High Court considers that initiation or registering of the investigation against the accused person where there is probability of his involvement in the commission of an offence, the High Court, while exercising its revisional power can very well issue an appropriate direction to meet the ends of justice to which, it has to act as its saviour. Even from that view point also, this Court holds that the finding which has been recorded by the Juvenile Justice Board, in fact, it is a very premature stage, whereby, only direction has been issued to the Investigating Officer to carry on the investigation, if there is any probability of involvement of the revisionist in the commission of offence. 22. The learned counsel for the revisionist has referred to the provisions contained under Section 30 of the Evidence Act, which lays down the consideration which has to be resorted and to be considered by the Trial Court while determining the commission of an offence, based on the interpretation of the statements, if offence if, any is made by the co-accused person and its ambit upto which it would affect trial and, in particular, a reference has been made to the illustration (b) by the learned counsel for the revisionist. The same would have no applicability in the given circumstances, as the powers of Revision of High Court is being considered from altogether a different perspective. 23. At the risk of repetition, yet again, at this stage Section 30 of the Evidence Act will not have its applicability at all, it would apply if at all would be attracting it would be only when the Investigating Officer initiate the proceedings in pursuance to the observation made in the impugned order dated 16th May, 2019, and the manner in which, he takes into consideration the confession of the juvenile for the purpose of settlement of any offence of which the revisionist could have been charged with of having his involvement. Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act reads as under :- “30-Consideration of proved confession affecting person making it and others jointly under trial for same offence :- When more persons than one are being tried jointly for the same offence, and a confession made by one of such persons affecting himself and some other of such persons is proved, the Court may take into consideration such confession as against such other person as well as against the person who makes such confession. [Explanation.-"Offence", as used in this section, includes the abetment of, or attempt to commit the offence.]” 24. Hence, the illustration (b) would only come into consideration when the actual trial takes place or has commenced actually as against the revisionist in pursuance to the observation made in the impugned order dated 16th May, 2019. [Explanation.-"Offence", as used in this section, includes the abetment of, or attempt to commit the offence.]” 24. Hence, the illustration (b) would only come into consideration when the actual trial takes place or has commenced actually as against the revisionist in pursuance to the observation made in the impugned order dated 16th May, 2019. In this regard, the learned counsel for the revisionist has made reference to a judgment as rendered by the High of Judicature of Bombay, wherein the Coordinate Bench while considering the impact of Section 30 pertaining to the confessional statement and its effect, for the purposes of determining of the commission of an offence and that too a statement which has been recorded by co-accused, this Court on going through the judgment, yet again, records the same reasoning that the ratio and the implication of Section 30 as dealt with by the Bombay High Court in the aforesaid judgment was under the circumstances when the accused persons were facing the actual trial and the impact of Section 30 came into play when the Court was considering the statement of other co-accused persons for the purposes of framing of the charge by the Court against the revisionist of his alleged involvement in the commission of an offence. This judgment will not apply though the ratio propounded therein may not be disputed for the reason that the stage of the implications of statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. of the juvenile, for the purposes of establishment of an offence, as against the revisionist is a stage which is yet to be arrived, if at all the proceedings are initiated by the investigating officer in pursuance to the observations which has been made by the Juvenile Justice Board. (See Union of India Vs. Salemohamad Abdulla Kara, 1979 0 Supreme (Guj) 185). 25. (See Union of India Vs. Salemohamad Abdulla Kara, 1979 0 Supreme (Guj) 185). 25. Even the judgment of Gujrat High Court, on which, reliance has been placed, in order to support his contention pertaining to the argument raised in the light of the provisions contained under Section 30 of the Evidence Act, will have no applicability because that was the case where in the proceedings which was drawn under Section 135 of the Import and Export Control Act, 2008, there have been confession by the co-accused, in relation to the violation of the provisions contained under Section 135 with regard to the shipment and its extent of involvement in the commission of offence. This judgment too was at a very later stage of the proceedings when the Gujrat High Court was dealing with impact of Section 30 after the plea was accepted pertaining to convicting and sentencing a person for the commission of offence under Section 135 of the aforesaid Act. 26. The another judgment, on which, reliance has been placed by the revisionist, yet again to support his argument in relation to the provisions contained under Section 30 of the Evidence Act, is a judgment rendered by the Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Bhorela Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2008 0 Supreme (MP) 182, wherein, the implication pertaining to the confessional statement was being considered in relation to the commission of offences under Section 302 and it was yet again dealing with the impact of Section 30 of the Evidence Act, and pertaining to the interpretation of the confessional statement after the conclusion of full fledged trial. When the matter was carried before the Division Bench, as against the judgment of the Sessions trial, where a conviction has taken place for the commission of offence under Section 302, wherein, in those circumstances, the Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court was considering the impact of the statement under Section 164 as given by the co-accused for the purposes of establishment of an offence against the other co-accused person which too will not apply in the instant case which is altogether based upon a different set of facts and circumstances, of the case where a reference of the statement of the juvenile has apparently only reflected the instruction which was imparted by the revisionist, who was admittedly his employer the fact which was never denied by him, as to how the juvenile has to function, who was working under him, as a Driver of the dumper of the transport company of which, he was, i.e. the revisionist was the owner, which was involved in the accident. 27. Apart from all technicalities of law, this Court while exercising its discretionary powers under Section 401 of the Cr.P.C. since has derived the knowledge from the material which has been brought on record, could sustain the direction as issued by the Juvenile Justice Board, though it may not be falling within the functioning of the Board under Section 8, but, in fact the direction contained therein was not even prohibited by the provision contained under Section 8 of the Act nor it was having any conclusive impact. 28. In that view of the matter, this Court does not find any apparent legal anomaly, which could call for interference, while exercising the revisional powers under Section 401 to be read with Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015. Consequently, the Revision fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. 29. However, there would be no order as to costs.