Allowed

Km. Saloni Shukla v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC12 Apr 2018CRLR/3294/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Criminal Revision No. 3294 of 2013, the Court set aside an order declaring the accused juvenile by a Magistrate of his jurisdiction. The Court held Magistrates cannot exercise powers under the Juvenile Justice Act and ordered remand to the Juvenile Justice Board.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders of AoSM and Chief Metropolitan Magistrate set aside; case remanded to Juvenile Justice Board for enquiry with 60-day period for evidence.

Km. Saloni Shukla Vs State of U.P. and Another — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 28

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3294 of 2013 Revisionist :- Km. Saloni Shukla Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. & Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Dharm Prakash Mishra,Balendra Kumar Singh,Rakesh Kumar Dubey

¶3

Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,Ajay Singh,C.K. Jha

¶4

Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for revisionist, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and learned A.G.A. for State.

¶6

This criminal revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 23.10.2013 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 4 Kanpur Nagar in Criminal Appeal No. 134/2013 (Km. Saloni Shukla Vs. State of U.P. and others), dismissing the appeal against order dated 11.10.2012 passed by Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar. Vide order dated 11.10.2012, Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar, Vivek Soni was declared juvenile in Case Crime No. 568/2012, under Section 302 I.P.C. and Case Crime No. 569/2012 under Section 3/25 Arms Act, Police Station Barra, District Kanpur Nagar on the basis of date of birth mentioned as 02.08.1995 in the high school certificate.

¶7

Learned counsel for revisionist by submitting of mark-sheet and school certificate contended that Vivek Soni had appeared in high school examination in Year 2009 and failed in examination. In his application for admission in D.M.U. Inter College, Govind Nagar, Kanpur, scholar register, mark-sheet of high school, in which Vivek Soni was failed, and register-sheet of school, date of birth of revisionist Vivek Soni is mentioned as 18.07.1994. Accordingly, on 09.08.2012, at the date of occurrence, he was major of age above 18 years.

¶8

He further contended that these records were not available with the revisionist. These records were made available to revisionist only after order passed by appellate court. The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar has no jurisdiction to declare a person juvenile rather it is jurisdiction of Juvenile Justice Board. The impugned order dated 11.10.2012 was passed by Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar in absence of revisionist. Opposite Party No. 2 Vivek Soni has concealed this fact that he has appeared in high school examination in year 2009 and his date of birth in the school certificate is 18.07.1994. Due to this concealment, courts below have passed impugned order.

¶9

Learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 contended that opposite party has applied to make correction of date of birth in certificate relating to Year 2009. Appellate court has considered the different date of birth mentioned in the certificate and passed the impugned order. Impugned order passed by courts below are not beyond jurisdiction.

¶10

According to Section (6) of the Juvenile Justice Care and Protection of Children Act 2000, Juvenile Justice Board have power to deal exclusively with all proceedings under the Act relating to juvenile in conflict with law. As per provision of Section (7) of the Act a Magistrate not empowered to exercise the powers of a Board under the Act is of the opinion that a person brought before him under provision of Act is a juvenile or the child, he shall without any delay records such opinion and forwarded the juvenile or a child and the record of proceeding to Juvenile Justice Board having jurisdiction over the proceeding. The Juvenile Justice Board, accordingly shall hold the enquiry about juvenility of that person.

¶11

In view of these provisions of law, Chief Metropolitan Magistrate had no jurisdiction to hold enquiry or declare that Vivek Soni is juvenile.

¶12

From perusal of order dated 11.10.2012, it is also evident that Chief Metropolitan Magistrate has passed order in absence of revisionist. From perusal of document submitted by revisionist it reveals that the date of birth of Vivek Soni is mentioned 18.07.1994 in those certificates. No one can be permitted to take advantage of his own concealment.

¶13

In view of above, instant criminal revision is allowed. The order dated 23.10.2013 passed by Additional Sessions Judge and order dated 11.10.2012 passed by Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar are hereby set aside.

¶14

The matter is remanded back to Juvenile Justice Board, Kanpur Nagar to hold enquiry and determine the juvenility of Vivek Soni on the basis of evidence after affording opportunity to both the parties to produce the evidence within 60 days from the receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶15

Till the decision on juvenility of Vivek Soni, no coercive action shall be taken against him. Office is directed to send forthwith certified copy of this order to Juvenile Justice Board, Kanpur Nagar.

¶16

Order Date :- 12.4.2018/Sharad/-

Km. Saloni Shukla v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Km. Saloni Shukla 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Gulafsa @ Chandani and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru Secy. and 4 Others

Sudhakar Upadhyay Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

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

Smt. Maya Devi Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Saurabh @ Saurabh Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Rajesh Kumar Vs State and Others