Dismissed

Juvenile X Under the Guardianship of Father Y v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC15 Jul 2024CRLR/800/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court clarified that despite the appellate order remitting the matter, the revisionist was not reportedly found misled because the appellate court had found the respondent appeared and his statement was not unaccounted for in the trial record.

What did the court decide?

The criminal revision filed challenging the appellate order dated 29.06.2024 is dismissed.

Juvenile X Under the Guardianship of Father… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:47779

¶2

Court No. - 11

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 800 of 2024

¶4

Revisionist :- Juvenile X Under The Guardianship Of Father Y Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another

¶5

Counsel for Revisionist :- Pradeep Kumar Mishra,Chhaya Tripathi

¶6

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶7

Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.

¶8

1. Heard.

¶9

Instant revision under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2015 has been filed challenging the judgment and order dated 29.06.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO), Shrawasti in Criminal Appeal No.20 of 2023 in re: Gomti Prasad Sharma @ Gomti Sharma vs. State of U.P., and another.

¶10

Perusal of the order impugned would indicate that the learned appellate court has considered the fact that the appellant therein/respondent no.2 herein appeared on three dates but his statement was not recorded neither any reasons were indicated as to why his statement has not been recorded. Subsequent thereto, there is nothing on record to indicate as to what transpired on 28.06.2022. Thereafter on 22.07.2022 the crossexamination of the appellant was closed, the matter was listed on 26.07.2022 on which date statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded, the matter was listed on 29.07.2022 and the revisionist herein has been acquitted.

¶11

Considering the aforesaid specific finding as recorded by the learned appellate court it is thus apparent that the appellant had virtually been condemned unheard by Board which has resulted in the appeal filed by him having been allowed.

¶12

By means of the order impugned the matter has only been remitted to the Board to reconsider the matter. Thus, keeping in view the aforesaid discussion this Court does not find any infirmity in the order impugned dated 29.06.2024. Accordingly, the revision is dismissed.

¶13

Order Date :- 15.7.2024 A. Katiyar

¶14

Digitally signed by :- AMIT KATIYAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Juvenile X Under the Guardianship of Father Y v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Juvenile X Under the Guardianship of Father Y v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ramharakh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lucknow and Another

Mohan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Ranjit Dwivedi (Ranjit Dubey in Complaint) and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Moolchandra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Bhallar Ali Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Anurag Gupta Vs State of U.P., Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another