Criminal revision challenging a Juvenile Justice Board order taking cognizance without full Board signatures. Court held such absence is not mandatory for interlocutory orders under Section 7.
Criminal revision under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 dismissed; J.J. Board order upheld.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:179280
Court No. - 80
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4132 of 2023
Revisionist :- X- Minor And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Rajesh Dutta Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ashutosh Gupta
Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.
Heard learned counsel for the revisionists as well as learned counsel for the opposite party alongwith learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.
The present criminal revision has been preferred by the revisionists through their fathers under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act-2015 (hereinafter referred to as "J.J. Act, 2015) to allow the present revision and set aside the summoning and cognizance order dated 10.12.2021 passed by Principal Magistrate (Juvenile Justice Board) Mathura in Case No.128/2021 (State of U.P. vs. Vaibhav @ Kanha and Love) arising out of Case Crime No.117/2021 under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Govind Nagar, Mathura and order dated 11.07.2023 passed by Additional Session Judge/Additional Special Judge (POCSO Act) Court No.2, Mathura in Juvenile Appeal No.116/2022 C.I.S. No.117/2022 (X-1 Minor and another vs. State of U.P. and another).
It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionists that the order passed by Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Mathura dated 10.12.2021 regarding taking cognizance of the offence on submission of charge sheet before the Board, is illegal because it has not been signed by the remaining two members of the Board as per Section 4 of the Act which contains the provisions related to constitution of the Board. It is further submitted that the order passed by the Principal Magistrate, J.J. Board cannot be said to be lawful, therefore, it is likely to be set aside. Learned appellate court also did not consider this legal aspect but dismissed the appeal by order dated 11.07.2023. In this way, the orders passed by learned Principal Magistrate, J.J. Board concerned as well as appellate court being unlawful and illegal are liable to be set aside and this revision is to be allowed.
Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the opposite party opposed the submissions as made by learned counsel for the revisionists and urged that at the time of taking cognizance of the offence the presence of the members of the Board or their signatures on the order cannot be said to be mandatory as per the provisions of law. It is also urged that Section 7 of the Act provides the procedure in relation to the Board according to which the child in conflict with law may be produced before an individual member of the Board when the Board is not in sitting, therefore, even the absence of the members cannot be said to be material at the time of passing of order. It is also urged that that presence of two members including the Principal Magistrate at the time of final disposal of the case or an order under sub-section (3) of Section 18 is necessary but no such order has been passed by the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Mathura. In this way, the present revision being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for both the parties as well as learned A.G.A. and perusal of record, it appears that in this case charge sheet was filed by the police before the learned J.J. Board on the basis of which cognizance of the offence was taken by the Principal Magistrate, J.J. Board vide order dated 10.12.2012 and no any final disposal of the case was made by the order in question and even no order under sub-section (3) of Section 18 was passed, therefore, the presence of at least two members including Principal Magistrate can also not be said to be mandatory as per sub-section (3) of Section 7. Sub-section 2 of Section 7 also provides that a child in conflict with law may be produced before an individual member of the Board when it is not in sitting. Accordingly, up to the stage of passing of the order of cognizance on 10.12.2021 no such child in conflict with law was produced before the leaned Magistrate but only cognizance was taken by him and summon was issued for the production of child before the learned Board for further proceedings. In the order passed by learned Principal Magistrate of the Board concerned, there appears no any illegality or impropriety but this revision being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly, this criminal revision is dismissed.
Order Date :- 18.9.2023 Ashok Gupta
Digitally signed by :- ASHOK KUMAR GUPTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
3 issues framed by the court
Whether personal presence and signatures of all Board members are mandatory for an order taking cognizance under Section 7 of the J.J. Act, 2015.
Whether a revision challenging the absence of Board members in an interlocutory order is maintainable.
Whether the J.J. Board can take cognizance of an offence before the full Board is constituted or in session.
3 provisions across 1 enactments
X- Minor And Another
State of U.P.
Subhash Chandra Sharma
Ashok Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
