Petitioner in conflict with law challenged conviction, claiming juvenile status during commission of murder. Court noted juvenile inquiry concluded petitioner was adult and accepted District Judge's explanation. Writ petition dismissed.
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.
wp637.2011.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
Criminal Writ Petition No. 637 of 2011
Mohan Mahavirprasad Kaithwas
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra and another
Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram,___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's Orders.
Ms S. B. Saikhede, Advocate for the Petitioner Shri A. S. Sonare, APP for the respondents
CORAM : P. V. HARDAS &
A.P. BHANGALE, JJ. DATED : OCTOBER 3, 2012.
A communication addressed by the
petitioner from jail has been registered as Criminal Writ Petition. When this petition was listed before us for admission, we had appointed Ms S. B. Saikhede
learned Counsel, to represent the petitioner.
By this petition, the petitioner prays that
he be released on the ground that the petitioner was juvenile in conflict with law on the date of commission of offence. The petitioner along with other accused stands convicted and sentenced for an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian
wp637.2011.odt
2
Penal Code. This Court, by its order dated 15th December, 2011, had directed the District Judge, Akola to conduct an inquiry and submit report to this Court. However, it appears that the District Judge, Akola transferred the inquiry to the Juvenile Justice Board, Akola. The Juvenile Justice Board, Akola upon examination of the material produced by the petitioner, came to the conclusion that the petitioner was not a juvenile in conflict with law. This Court had, however, by an order passed subsequently directed the District Judge, Akola to conduct an inquiry and submit his report as well as his explanation for not following the order of this Court. A compliance report has accordingly received from the District Judge and as per the compliance report, the District Judge has himself conducted the inquiry and has come to the conclusion that the petitioner was not a juvenile in conflict with law. The District Judge, Akola also offered his explanation which we
accept.
wp637.2011.odt
3
Accordingly, since there is no merit in the
present petition, this petition is dismissed.
Fees payable to the learned Counsel appointed for the petitioner is quantified at Rs. 1,500/- (Rupees One Thousand and Five Hundred only).
The District Judge, Akola be intimated that his explanation is accepted.
JUDGE
JUDGE
Punde
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner qualifies as a juvenile in conflict with law on the date of commission of offence.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Mohan Mahavirprasad Kaithwas
The State of Maharashtra
P.V. Hardas
A.P. Bhangale
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
