Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

PIYUSH KUMAR AGARWAL versus STATE OF U.P. & ANOTHER

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Piyush Kumar Agarwal v. State Of U.P. & Another - CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3333 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 18332 (27 November 2007)

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

Reserved

Criminal Revision No.3333 of 2007

Piyush Kumar Agarwal vs. State of U.P. and another

Hon. A.K. Roopanwal, J.

This criminal revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 19.9.07 passed by the Special Judge, E.C. Act, Bareilly in criminal appeal no.137/07 filed against the order dated 17.8.07 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Bareilly.

It appears from the facts of the case that the revisionist, Piyush Kumar Agarwal lodged an FIR against three unknown persons at Kotwali, Bareilly. On the basis of this FIR a case at crime no.2738/06, under Sections 323, 452, 302, IPC was registered. During the course of investigation the name of opposite party no.2, Mohammad Danish Alam alias Baba came into light. This accused moved an application before the Juvenile Justice Board, Bareilly for declaring him juvenile. In support of his juvenility he relied upon the school records. The prosecution opposed the prayer. The Juvenile Justice Board found that the school record available on the file was not sufficient to determine the age. Medical opinion was obtained and on the basis of this opinion the Juvenile Justice Board found that the accused was not a juvenile. His application was, accordingly, rejected. Against the order dated 17.8.07 refusing to declare the accused juvenile passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Bareilly an appeal no.137/07 was filed by the accused. The appellate court after elaborate discussion found that the school record being available medical opinion could not be considered. The appellate court relied upon the school records and allowed the appeal vide judgment and order dated 19.9.07.

I have heard Mr. Manish Tiwary, learned counsel for the revisionist, learned AGA for the State, Mr. Amit Srivastava for opposite party no.2 and perused the record.

Mr. Tiwary argued that the school records relied upon by the accused were not reliable and therefore, the medical opinion should have been taken into use by the appellate court. By not doing the same an improper order has been passed by the Sessions Judge concerned and therefore, this order is liable to be set aside. I do not agree with the argument of Mr. Tiwary.

It appears from the whole record that the accused pleaded that his date of birth as per the school records was 3.7.90. This contention of the accused was refuted by the revisionist. It was said by the revisionist that as per school records the date of birth of the accused was 7.10.90 and not 3.7.90. Thus, the school records relied upon by the accused were challenged by the revisionist and a definite date of birth was pleaded by him. When a specific date of birth had been pleaded by the revisionist, he was bound by that date and he could not be allowed to say that the whole records should be disbelieved as there was difference in the date of birth. In the light of the assertion of the revisionist school record relied upon by the accused could only be disbelieved. If these are found to be not reliable even then from the school record relied upon by the revisionist, the accused would be a juvenile on the date of the occurrence.

When the school record was available then certainly the medical opinion could not be taken aid of by the authorities below. The appellate court was, therefore, justified in placing reliance on the school record ignoring the medical opinion.

In view of the above, I do not find any impropriety in the order passed by the appellate court. Consequently, the revision having no merits is liable to be dismissed.

Revision is, hereby, dismissed.

Dated:27.11.07

T. Sinha.


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.