Dismissed

Brijesh Kumar Thru His Father Dharampal Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC23 Apr 2018CRLR/100/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Criminal Revision, the Hon'ble Court dismissed the petition challenging the Additional Sessions Judge's order rejecting the revisionist's claim of juvenility. The Court upheld the lower court's finding that the school certificate was fabricated and affirmed that determining age based on the medical report post-fabrication finding is legal.

What did the court decide?

The criminal revision is dismissed.

Brijesh Kumar Thru His Father Dharampal Singh Vs… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 28

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 100 of 2008

¶3

Revisionist :- Brijesh Kumar Thru' His Father Dharampal Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. & Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Anoop Trivedi,Shashank Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,R.P.Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J.

¶5

List has been revised. None is present on behalf of the opposite party no. 2 to argue the revision. However, learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. are present.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶7

This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 03.01.2008 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 1, Baghpat, whereby the application of the revisionist to declare him juvenile in conflict with law was rejected, holding that the revisionist is major. This order has been passed relying on the medical certificate of the revisionist, while the school certificate was rejected on the ground that it was found to be fabricated.

¶8

Learned counsel for the revisionist contended that in compliance of the order dated 03.09.2007 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 5, Meerut in Criminal Appeal No. 124 of 2007 (Brijesh v. State), learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 1, Baghpat has passed the impugned order. As per provision of Section 7 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (in short 'the Act'), the Juvenile Justice Board concerned should have passed order about the juvenility of the revisionist.

¶9

Learned counsel for the revisionist further contended that there is no evidence available on record to show that school certificate filed by the revisionist in the trial court is forged or fabricated.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. contended that there is no illegality in the impugned order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge concerned. This revision was earlier dismissed on 09.07.2010 on merit. Later on, the aforesaid order dated 09.07.2010 was recalled and further on 25.04.2013, the revision was again

¶11

dismissed on merit. That order was also recalled by this Court vide order dated 23.08.2016.

¶12

As per provision of Section 7A of the Act, whenever claim of juvenility is raised before any court, the court shall make an enquiry or take such evidence, as necessary, so as to determine the age of such person and shall record whether the person is juvenile or not, stating the age as nearly as may be.

¶13

It is admitted fact that on 03.09.2007, at the time of order passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 5, Meerut, in Criminal Appeal No. 124 of 2007 (Brijesh v. State), sessions trial was pending before Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 1, Baghpat. By order dated 03.09.2007, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 5, Meerut had send back the file of the court concerned. The court concerned was court of Additional Session Judge, Fast Track Court No. 1, Baghpat. As per provision of Section 7A of the Act, Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 1,Baghpat has jurisdiction to decide the juvenility of the accused-revisionist as sessions trial was pending before him.

¶14

From the perusal of order dated 03.01.2008 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 1, Baghpat and record of the case, it is evident that the revisionist had taken admission on 31.07.2000 in Shri Krishna Inter College, Baloni. Before admission in that school, he was a student of Shubhkamna Public School, Baloni. On the basis of date of birth of the revisionist mentioned in the school certificate of Shubhkamna Public School, Baloni, his date of birth was mentioned in the record of Shri Krishna Public School, Baloni. Sri Ravindra Kumar, Principal of Shubhkamna Public School, Baloni, who was examined by the revisionist, admitted before the court that the school was closed from the year 2003 and all the records of the school was lying with him at his residence. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 1, Baghpat has observed that this record must be with the Basic Sikhsha Adhikari (B.S.A.). On this ground, he held that date of birth of the accused-revisionist as mentioned in the school certificate is fabricated.

¶15

Learned counsel for the revisionist, relying on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Ashwani Kumar Saxena v. State of M.P. reported in 2012 (9) SCC 750 submitted that it is not expected from court, Juvenile Justice Board or a Committee functioning under the Act to conduct such a roving enquiry and to go behind the correctness of school certificate. In the present case, it is not expected from Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 1, Baghpat to make a roving enquiry in this

¶16

matter.

¶17

In Ashwani Kumar Saxena 's case (supra), Hon'ble Apex Court held that in case those documents or certificates are found to be manipulated, the court, the Board or the Committee needs to examine the medical report for determination of age of the juvenile in conflict with law.

¶18

In the present case, learned Additional Fast Track Court No. 1 Baghpat found that the date of birth of the revisionist as mentioned in the school certificate is fabricated and after that, he determined the age of the revisionist on the basis of the medical report.

¶19

In view of above, I find no illegality in the impugned order passed by the court below.

¶20

The instant revision sans merit and is accordingly dismissed .

¶21

Order Date :- 23.4.2018

¶22

I. Batabyal

Brijesh Kumar Thru His Father Dharampal Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Brijesh Kumar Thru His Father Dharampal Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pardeshi Vs Kallu and Others

Ramesh Alias Babbu Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Ravi Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Raies and 3 Others Vs State of Up and Another

Bachchoo Singh Vs State of U.P.

Bilal Vs State of U.P. and Another