Dismissed

State of Hp v. Amit Sharma

Himachal Pradesh HC5 Nov 2019CR.R/239/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court examined the maintainability of a criminal revision filed by the State of Himachal Pradesh under Section 397 CrPC challenging an acquittal of a juvenile by the Juvenile Justice Board. The Court held the revision not maintainable before the Sessions Court under both the 2000 and 2015 Acts, dismissing the petition as devoid of merits.

What did the court decide?

Criminal revision petition dismissed as devoid of merits holding revision under Section 397 CrPC against Juvenile Justice Board acquittal not maintainable before Sessions Court.

State of Hp Vs Amit Sharma — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Himachal Pradesh HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

Cr. Revision No. 239 of 2019 Date of Decision: 5.11.2019.

¶3

_[ State of Himachal Pradesh ……...Petitioner. Versus Amit Sharma ……....Respondent. Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting¹ ? For the petitioner: Mr. Sudhir Bhatnagar and Mr. Sanjeev Sood, Additional Advocate Generals, with Mr. Kunal Thakur, Deputy Advocate General. For the respondent: Mr. Ajay Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ajay Thakur, Advocate.

¶4

Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

¶5

Instant criminal revision petition filed under Section 102 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, lays challenge to order dated 21.8.2018, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Hamirpur, District Hamirpur, H.P., in Criminal Revision No. 15 of 2015, whereby the revision petition under Section 397 Cr.PC, having been filed by the petitioner (respondent herein ) came to be dismissed being not maintainable.

¶6

2. Briefly stated facts, as emerge from the record are that on 2.1.2012, at about 5:15 pm, complainant Desh Raj telephonically informed the police station, Nadaun, that his daughter had gone to purchase certain articles, but subsequently, was found dead on the way. On the basis of aforesaid complaint, police after entering the rapat in Rojnamacha went to the spot and recorded the statement of complainant under Section 154 Cr.PC. Complainant alleged that on 2.1.2012, his daughter expressed her desire to eat

¶7

Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment?

¶8

¶9

Halwa and as such, he gave her Rs.100/- for purchase of articles i.e. 250 grams ghee, one biscuit packet from the shop, but when she did not return for a considerable time, wife of the complainant went for search, but minor daughter could not be traced. Complainant alleged that in the meantime, he heard the cries of the daughter from the path behind his house and he after reaching the spot found his daughter Shweta drenched with blood. He alleged that one bamboo stick of three feet was lying by the side of the dead body of his daughter Shweta. On the basis of aforesaid complaint, FIR No. 3 of 2012 dated 2.1.2012, under Section 302 IPC came to be registered.

¶10

3. During investigation of the case, police found the respondentaccused (hereinafter referred to as the “Juvenile in conflict”) to be involved in the case and allegedly, on his disclosure statement, recovered his pant having blood stains from his house. After completion of investigation, police presented the challan in the court of learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Hamirpur, District Hamirpur, H.P., who on the basis of evidence led on record by the respective parties acquitted the Juvenile in conflict vide judgment dated 3.2.2015.

¶11

4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment of acquittal recorded by the Juvenile Justice Board, Hamirpur, petitioner-State preferred revision petition under Section 397 Cr.PC before the learned Sessions Judge, Hamirpur, who vide judgment dated 31.8.2018 held the revision petition filed by the State to be not maintainable. In the aforesaid background, petitioner-State has approached this Court in the instant proceedings filed under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.

¶12

¶13

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties vis-à-vis reasoning assigned in the impugned judgment, this Court finds no fault with the finding returned by the learned Sessions Judge, Hamirpur that revision petition under Section 397 Cr.PC., laying therein challenge to judgment dated 3.2.2015 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board Hamirpur, acquitting the Juvenile in conflict is not maintainable, because careful perusal of Section 52 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, which was applicable at the time of filing of revision petition under Section 397 (7) Cr.PC suggests that court could only entertain the appeal, if any, against the order made by the competent authority under this Act and no revision, whatsoever, was maintainable before the court of learned Sessions Judge.

¶14

6. It would be apt to take note of Sections 52 and 53 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000:-

¶15

“The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 52. Appeals.—

¶16

(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, any person aggrieved by an order made by a competent authority under this Act may, within thirty days from the date of such order, prefer an appeal to the Court of Session:

¶17

Provided that the Court of Session may entertain the appeal after the expiry of the said period of thirty days if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time.

¶18

(2) No appeal shall lie from—

¶19

(a) any order of acquittal made by the Board in respect of a juvenile alleged to have committed an offence; or

¶20

(b) any order made by a Committee in respect of a finding that a person is not a neglected juvenile.

¶21

(3) No second appeal shall lie from any order of the Court of Session passed in appeal under this section.

¶22

53. Revision.—The High Court may, at any time, either of its own motion or on an application received in this behalf, call for the record of any proceeding in which any competent authority or Court of Session has passed an order for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality or propriety of any such order and may pass such order in relation thereto as it thinks fit:

¶23

Provided that the High Court shall not pass an order under this section prejudicial to any person without giving him a reasonable opportunity of being heard.”

¶24

¶25

7. It is quite apparent from the reading of aforesaid provisions of law contained in Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, which otherwise stand repealed that no revision, if any, against the judgment rendered by the Juvenile Justice Board could be filed before the Court of Sessions, rather Section 53 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, as has been taken note herein above, provides that High Court may either of its own motion or on an application received in this behalf, call for record of any proceeding in which any competent authority or Court of Session has passed an order for the purpose of satisfying itself as far as propriety or legality of any such order.

¶26

8. Mr. Sudhir Bhatnagar, learned Additional Advocate General, was unable to point out any provision contained in Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, which provides for filing of revision petition against order of acquittal passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, rather as per aforesaid Act, revision, if any, could only be filed before the High Court as has been observed herein above. Leaving everything aside, Section 52 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 clearly provides that no appeal would lie from any order of acquittal made by the Board in respect of a juvenile alleged to have committed an offence. No doubt, learned Sessions Judge while holding revision petition filed by the petitioner-State to be not maintainable, wrongly referred to Section 101 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 because admittedly, aforesaid Act, came into force w.e.f. 15.1.2016, whereas revision petition under Section 397 Cr.PC was filed by the petitioner-State on 20.5.2015 during the existence of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000.

¶27

¶28

9. Though provisions contained under Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 are not applicable to the present case, but even under this new Act, there is no provision for filing the revision before the learned Sessions Judge, rather aggrieved party can file appeal under Section 101 to the Court of learned Sessions Judge that too in the cases where heinous offence by children/juvenile is alleged to have been committed. Section 102 of aforesaid new Act, provides for revision petition before the High Court not before the Court of Sessions. Provisions contained under Section 112 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 may not have any bearing as far as finding returned by the learned Sessions Judge in the instant case is concerned, because admittedly, there is/was no provision to file revision under Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 in the court of Sessions Judge against the order of acquittal recorded by the Juvenile Justice Board and same is the position in the new Act i.e. Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, which provides power of revision only to the High Court not to the court of Sessions.

¶29

10. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court sees no illegality and infirmity in the impugned judgment, which otherwise appears to be based upon proper appreciation of law, and as such, present petition is dismissed being devoid of any merits. Needless to say, the petitioner-State being aggrieved, if any, by the order of acquittal passed by the Juvenile Justice Board can always resort to the remedy of revision as envisaged under Section 102 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.

¶30

(Sandeep Sharma), Judge.

¶31

5^th November, 2019

¶32

manjit

State of Hp v. Amit Sharma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Hp v. Amit Sharma

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

Leela Thakur Vs State

Harinder Vs State of Hp

Vikram Singh Vs State of Hp

Jung Bahadur Singh Bawa Vs Anju Sharma and Another

Sandeep Sharma Vs Narinder Sharma

Harnaam Singh and Another Vs Shrikant Baldi and Others