Dismissed

Juvenile X v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC17 Aug 2023CRLR/1990/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal revision under the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, the Allahabad High Court rejected arguments that the Juvenile Justice Board illegally treated the Revisionist as an adult. The Court held the transfer to the Special Judge (POCSO Act) as the Children's Court was lawful under the Act. The revision was dismissed as devoid of merit.

What did the court decide?

The criminal revision preferred by the Juvenile X was dismissed against the order of the Juvenile Justice Board and the appellate court.

Juvenile X Vs State of U.P. and Another — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:165563

¶2

Court No. - 80

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1990 of 2022

¶4

Revisionist :- Juvenile X Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Nagendra Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Preet Pal Singh Rathore

¶5

Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.

¶6

List revised. None appeared on behalf of the opposite party even in the revised call.

¶7

Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the revisionist today is taken on record.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶9

The present criminal revision has been preferred by the revisionist through his father under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act -2015 to allow the present revision and the order dated 11.03.2022 passed by Upper Session Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act), District Budaun in Criminal Appeal No.30/2021 (Manoj vs. State of U.P. and others) whereby the appeal has been dismissed against the order dated 11.08.2021 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Budaun in Case No.07/2020 (State of U.P. vs. Manoj) arising out of Case Crime No.171/2017 under Sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. & Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Islamnagar, District Budaun and it has been confirmed for refusing to declare the revisionist as juvenile under the provisions of Section 2(12) of the Juvenile Justice Act and as such the impugned order be set aside and the revisionist be declared juvenile under the provisions of Section 2(12) of the Juvenile Justice Act.

¶10

It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that the case was being tried before the Special Judge (POCSO Act) Budaun as S.S.T. No.828/2017 u/s 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 POCSO Act in which an application for claim of juvenility was moved before the learned court which was decided by order dated 01.02.2020 and the age of the revisionist was declared to be 17 years, 5 months & 10 days as a result matter of the revisionist was

¶11

referred to the learned J.J. Board. Thereafter, learned J.J. Board conducted a preliminary enquiry u/s 15 of the Act and passed an order dated 11.08.2021 while referring the matter to the Children's Court for trial of the revisionist as an adult in view of Section 18(3) of the aforesaid Act. It is further submitted that the learned J.J. Board passed the order dated 11.08.2021 while ignoring the relevant provisions of law as contained u/s 15 & 18 of the Act. It is also submitted that in the operative portion of the order of learned J.J. Board it has been clearly mentioned that the matter be transferred to the Children's Court which is not in existence at District Budaun, therefore, it be sent to the Additional District & Sessions Judge (POCSO Act), District Budaun in view of Section 2(20) of the J.J. Act. It is also submitted that several questions were asked by the learned Board from the revisionist which he answered and on the basis of those question and answers he was decided to be capable of understanding the consequences of the Act. In this way, the learned J.J. Board passed the order in question illegally. Therefore, requested to allow the revision and to set aside the order passed by learned J.J. Board as well as order passed by learned appellate court dated 11.08.2021 & 11.03.2022.

¶12

Learned counsel for the opposite party as well as learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer as aforesaid and contended that in this case the matter was referred by the Special Judge, POCSO Act to the learned J.J. Board after declaring the revisionist juvenile (aged about 17 years, 5 months and 10 days) and then learned J.J. Board considered the provisions of Section 15 & 18 of the Act and in pursuance thereto he made preliminary assessment about the physical capacity to commit such offence and the state of mind of the revisionist as to whether he was in the capacity to understand the consequences of the act and when found him to be capable in this regard, he ordered the matter to be transferred to the Children's Court i.e. Special Court, POCSO Act. Thereafter, the learned appellate court considered all these facts and provisions of law in detail and then passed the order in question. Therefore, there is no any illegality or impropriety in the orders passed by the learned courts below but this criminal revision has no force.

¶13

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perusal of provisions as contained u/s 15 & 18 of the Act, it appears that the case was being tried before the learned Special Judge, POCSO Act where the application for declaring him juvenile was moved on the part of the revisionist which was decided by the learned Special Court, POCSO Act on 01.02.2020 and his age was determined as 17 years

¶14

5 months 10 days. Hence, the matter was referred to the learned J.J. Board. On receiving the matter after applying its judicial mind and in view of the provisions as contained u/s 15 & 18 of the Act the learned Board made preliminary assessment about the physical and mental capacity of the revisionist and asked several questions to him in this regard which disclosed that the revisionist was in full capacity to commit such offence and to understand the nature of the act. In this way, the learned Board passed the order dated 11.08.2021 and sent the matter to the Children's Court for trial as an adult as provided u/s 18(3) of the Act. Since Section 2(20) of the Act provides that the Special Court, POCSO Act shall be deemed to be Children's Court in the District, therefore, the Special Judge, POCSO Act was designated to be Children's Court and referring the matter to the aforesaid court cannot be said to be in violation of law as a result there appears no any illegality or impropriety in the orders passed by the learned J.J. Board as well as learned appellate court but this criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed.

¶15

Accordingly, this criminal revision is, hereby, dismissed.

¶16

Order Date :- 17.8.2023 Ashok Gupta

¶17

Digitally signed by :- ASHOK KUMAR GUPTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Juvenile X v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Juvenile X 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

Juvenile -X Vs State of U.P. and Another

X- Juvenile Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Mr. X (Minor) Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Juvenile Vs State of U.P. and Another

X Juvenile Vs State of Up and Another

Manoj Kumar Pandey Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others