Dismissed

Badri v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC3 Apr 2018CRLRD/598/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In two criminal revisions, the single judge refused to condone a 266-day delay and dismissed the appeals. The court held no illegality existed in declaring the revisionist above 18 years based on a high school certificate compliant with juvenile justice rules. The underlying procedural application was rejected while the substantive revision was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Application for condonation of delay rejected; Criminal Revision dismissed as there was no illegality in the impugned order.

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

¶1

Court No. - 28

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 598 of 2017

¶3

In Ref. : Criminal Misc. Delay Condonation Application No. 314888 of 2017 (under Section 5 of the Limitation Act)

¶4

Revisionist :- Badri Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. & Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Satish Chand Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Swati Agrawal

¶5

Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J.

¶6

This criminal revision has been filed with a delay of 266 days.

¶7

Learned counsel for the revisionist contended that judgment and order of appellate court was not in his knowledge, so he could not prefer revision within time.

¶8

From the perusal of judgment and order dated 29.09.2016 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Azamgarh, it reveals that that order has been passed after hearing the revisionist. The delay in filing the appeal, as such, cannot be condoned.

¶9

In view of above, prayer for condoning the delay in filing the revision is refused.

¶10

Accordingly, the instant application is rejected.

¶11

Order Date :- 3.4.2018 I. Batabyal

¶12

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 598 of 2017

¶13

Revisionist :- Badri Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. & Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Satish Chand Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Swati Agrawal

¶14

Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J.

¶15

Also perused the impugned order passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Azamgarh declaring the revisionist juvenile. The Juvenile Justice Board declared the revisionist juvenile on the basis of his high school certificate. As per high school certificate, his date of birth is 11.07.1999 and accordingly, on the date of occurrence, that is to say, 29.11.2015, he was above 18 years of age.

¶16

As per provision of Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, date of birth of juvenile can be determined on the basis of matriculation certificate.

¶17

In view of above, I am of the view that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by courts below.

¶18

Resultantly, the instant revision is dismissed.

¶19

Order Date :- 3.4.2018 I. Batabyal

Badri v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Badri 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. Israwati @ Shakuntla Devi and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Chhote Lal Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Rabish Gour Minor Vs State of U.P. and Another

Krishna Ballabh Vs State of U.P. and Others

Lakshan and Another Vs State of U.P.

Rajendra Pal Singh Vs State of U.P.and Others