Dismissed

State of Haryana v. Raj Kumar

Punjab & Haryana HC30 Jul 2013CRM-A/309/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Criminal Misc. No. A-309-MA of 2013, the High Court dismissed the State of Haryana's appeal against an order upholding the Juvenile Justice Act 2000 benefit for the respondent. The court found that since the Appellate Court correctly applied Rule 12(3)(b) of the JJ Rules 2007, interference was not warranted.

What did the court decide?

Appellant's appeal dismissed; High Court declines to interfere with the Appellate Court's order allowing the juvenile benefit.

State of Haryana Vs Raj Kumar — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh

¶2

Criminal Misc. No. A-309-MA of 2013 (O&M)

¶3

Date of Decision: 30.7.2013

State of Haryana

... Applicant

Versus

Raj Kumar

... Respondent

CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jasbir Singh, Judge. Hon'ble Mr. Justice G.S.Sandhawalia, Judge.

¶10

Present: Mr. Baldev Singh Badhran, Additional Advocate General, Haryana for the applicant.

¶11

Jasbir Singh, Judge (Oral)

¶12

Criminal Misc. No. 29921 of 2013

¶13

In view of the reasons mentioned in the application, it is allowed and a delay of 130 days in filing the appeal stands condoned.

¶14

Criminal Misc. No. A-309-MA of 2013

¶15

Respondent-Raj Kumar was arrayed as an accused in FIR No. 23 dated 20.3.2011 for commission of offences under Sections 302/34 IPC, Police Station Baragudha. His application to claim benefit of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (in short “the Act”) was dismissed by the trial Court by taking note of entries made, qua his date of birth, in the birth certificate issued by the competent authority. When doing so, the entry made in the matriculation certificate, showing age of the above said person as 9.11.1993 was rejected. He went in appeal which was allowed vide order under

¶16

Bhardwaj Deepak Kumar 2013.08.06 13:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶17

Criminal Misc. No. A-309-MA of 2013 (O&M)

¶18

¶19

challenge. The Appellate Court has elaborately discussed the issue and the proposition of law involved and rightly said that as per the provisions of Rule 12(3)(b) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, to determine age of the accused to get benefit of the above said provision, in the first instance, reference has to be made to the matriculation or equivalent certificate. To say that respondent was a juvenile on the date of commission of offence i.e. 20.3.2011 reliance was placed upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Hari Ram

¶20

v. State of Rajasthan 2009(2) Recent Criminal Reports 878 .

¶21

We feel that no case is made out to cause interference in this

¶22

case.

¶23

Dismissed.

¶24

(Jasbir Singh) Judge

¶25

(G.S.Sandhawalia) Judge

¶26

July 30, 2013 “DK”

¶27

Bhardwaj Deepak Kumar 2013.08.06 13:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

State of Haryana v. Raj Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Haryana v. Raj Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gurmukh Singh Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Manjit Singh & Ors. Vs Secretary Department of Rural Dev. & Panchayats

Gurbachan Singh & Ors. Vs Dir. Rural Dev & Pan. & Ors.

Ratti Ram Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Ram Kunwar Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Bant Singh Vs State of Punjab