Dismissed

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

Allahabad HC20 Apr 2018CRLR/2126/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Criminal Revision No. 2126 of 2014, against an order declaring the revisionist a major and dismissing his juvenile status, the Court dismissed the revision. The Board relied on a genuine 2006 certificate showing the date of birth as 25.07.1991, rejecting a later 2009 certificate with a fabricated date of birth.

What did the court decide?

The revision was dismissed; the order of the Juvenile Justice Board declaring the revisionist a major was upheld.

Ramesh Alias Babbu Vs State of U.P. and Anr. — Child Custody and Guardianship | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 28

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2126 of 2014

¶3

Revisionist :- Ramesh Alias Babbu Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr. Counsel for Revisionist :- S.K. Singh,Rama Shankar Mishra,Ravindra Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,R.M.Upadhyay

¶4

Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Rama Shankar Mishra, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri L.D. Rajbhar, learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P.

¶6

Perused the record.

¶7

This revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 29.04.2014 passed by Sessions Judge, Basti in Criminal Appeal No. 03 of 2014 (Ramesh @ Babbu v. State of U.P. and Another), whereby the appeal against the order dated 10.01.2014 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Basti was dismissed. Vide order dated 10.01.2014, the revisionist was declared major and application of the revisionist to declare him juvenile was rejected.

¶8

Learned counsel for the revisionist contended that as per Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, if matriculation certificate is available, then on the basis of the same, age of the juvenile shall be determined.

¶9

Per contra, learned A.G.A. contended that there is no illegality in the impugned orders passed by the courts below.

¶10

Juvenile Justice Board, Basti has found that in high school certificate of year 2009, date of birth of the revisionist (juvenile) mentioned therein is absolutely fabricated. The revisionist (juvenile) had appeared in the high school examination in the year 2006. He has not filed his high school certificate of the year 2006, in which his date of birth was mentioned as 25.07.1991, but has filed his high school certificate of the year 2009, wherein his date of birth was mentioned as 15.07.1994. Only on the basis of his earlier certificate, the Board has held that his date of birth is 25.07.1991.

¶11

The revisionist failed in high school examination in the year 2006 and after that, in the year 2009, he reappeared in the high

¶12

school examination, stating his date of birth to be 15.07.1994, which is not based on any document. This shows that date of birth mentioned in the high school 2009 as 15.07.1994 is false and his date of birth - 25.07.1991, which is supported by other school certificate, is genuine.

¶13

In view of above, I am of the considered view that the impugned orders passed by the courts below are based on evidence and are not perverse.

¶14

The instant revision sans merit and is accordingly dismissed .

¶15

Order Date :- 20.4.2018 I. Batabyal

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Indrajeet Vs State of U.P.

Mandeep Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Krishna Kumar Agarwal Vs State of U.P.

Pardeshi Vs Kallu and Others

Ravi Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sharad and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another