Dismissed

Mohd. Sazid v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC5 Dec 2019CRLR/5711/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a criminal revision filed against an order referring the accused for age determination to the Juvenile Justice Board. The court held the impugned order was not final as the Juvenile Justice Board had not yet declared juvenility, rendering the revision not maintainable.

What did the court decide?

Revision dismissed as the impugned order was not final, pending the Juvenile Justice Board's determination of age and juvenility.

Mohd. Sazid Vs State of U.P. and Another — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 55

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 5711 of 2006

¶3

Revisionist :- Mohd. Sazid Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Radhey Shyam Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,Mohammad Sabbir

¶4

Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶5

None present from the side of the revisionist, whereas, learned AGA for the State is present.

¶6

This is a revision of the year 2006 and it is still awaiting admission.

¶7

It appears that this revision was listed on 15.07.2019 and 26.07.2019, when none appeared on behalf of the revisionist. On subsequent date of listing the case was adjourned on the basis of illness slip of the learned counsel for the revisionist.

¶8

Today, it has been listed peremptorily. Despite, repeated calls, today also, none is present for the revisionist.

¶9

Heard learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶10

This revision has been filed by the revisionist against the order dated 11.09.2006 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge /FTC, Shahjahanpur in S.T. No. 292 of 2004 (State Vs. Chhotey Lal and others), under section 302 I.P.C., P.S. Kotwali, District Shahjahanpur, whereby the learned trial court allowed the application 20 Kha given under Juvenile Justice Act, 2000 by opposite party no. 2 claiming himself to be juvenile and by that impugned order the learned trial court sent the record to the Juvenile Justice Board for determination of the age and declaration of Juvenility of opposite party no. 2.

¶11

From perusal of the impugned order, it appears that by the said application 20 kha, the incident took place on 07.09.2003 and as such he was below 17 years at the time of incident. In support, his school record of class 5 to class 7 was also filed. The learned trail court got the principal of the school examined as C.W.-1 who proved the school record. The clerk of the school was also examined as C.W.-2 and has stated that opposite party no. 2 got admission in class 6 on 15.07.1996 and in school record his date of birth was shown to be 03.01.1987. C.W.-3 Jahruna, mother of the opposite party no. 2 was also

¶12

examined in support. Therefore, considering the evidence on record, the learned trial court prima facie found the age of the applicant to be less than 17 years and gave a finding that the age of opposite party no. 2 as stated by the prosecution was completely doubtful, therefore, the impugned order was passed.

¶13

The file was separated and sent to juvenile justice board for determination of the age and jevenility.

¶14

In view of the above, it appears that the learned trial court has not passed any final order, so far as the age and juvenility of the applicant is concerned, it was yet to be decided by the Juvenile Justice Board. Therefore, the impugned order appears to be not final, in respect of juvenility and, as such, the revision was not maintainable against the impugned order.

¶15

I find no material irregularity or illegality in the impugned order nor there is any jurisdictional error, the revision lacks merit, hence, dismissed.

¶16

Order Date :- 5.12.2019 Bhanu

Mohd. Sazid v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Sazid 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Sushila Singh Vs State of U.P.and Others

Ram Prasad Baiswar Vs State of U.P. and Others

Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt. Shakuntla and 2 Ors.

Intezar Vs State of U.P.

Bhagwan Singh Alias Bhagi Vs State of U.P. and Others

Sachin Malhotra Vs Smt. Poonam and Another