High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Suman v. State Of U.P. - APPLICATION U/s 482 No. 16881 of 2005  RD-AH 6368 (24 November 2005)
Court no. 46
Criminal Misc. Application No. 16881 of 2005
Suman vs. State of U.P.
Hon'ble Mukteshwar Prasad J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and pursued the record including impugned order-dated 22.9.2005 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Banda whereby he rejected the application of the applicant for declaring him a Juvenile.
It appears that the applicant is an accused in a criminal case under Section 302 I.P.C. P.S. Barsanda, District Banda. The applicant prayed that he may be declared a Juvenile under Juvenile Justice (Care and Proction) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Learned Sessions Judge instead of holding any enquiry to ascertain whether the applicant was a Juvenile directed the applicant to appear and apply for declaring him Juvenile before the Juvenile Justice Board at Lalitpur. Learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on a decision of this Court in Pankaj and another vs. State of U.P. reported in 2005 (2) J.I.C. 537 (All).
I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the applicant, learned A.G.A. and pursed the aforesaid decision also.
Admittedly, Juvenile Justice Board at Lalitpur has been constituted for several districts of Bundelkhand including Banda.
It was submitted that in view of the provisions of Section 6(2) of the Act, when the applicant applied for declaring him Juvenile, the Sessions Judge had jurisdiction to hold a preliminary enquiry as provided under Section 6(2) of the Act. In case, he found that the applicant was not a juvenile, he could proceed against him and hold his trial along with other accused. In case, the learned Sessions Judge arrives at the conclusion that prima facie the applicant is a juvenile, he could refer the matter to Juvenile Justice Board. However, this was not done and as such, the order-dated 22.9.2005 is liable to be quashed.
I find that the contention of learned counsel for the applicant is well founded. Section 6(2) of the Act provides that power conferred to Juvenile Justice Board by /or under the Act may also be exercised by the Court of Session when the proceeding comes in appeal, revision or otherwise. It means learned Sessions Judge was competent to hold an enquiry.
In my opinion, he was required to hold a preliminary enquiry to ascertain whether the applicant was a juvenile. In case, it was found after enquiry that the applicant was a juvenile, he could refer the matter to Juvenile Justice Board at Lalitpur for holding an enquiry as provided under Section 14 of the Act.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is, therefore, allowed. The impugned order-dated 22.9.2005 is set aside. The matter is sent back to learned Sessions Judge for fresh decision on merits in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made here-in-above. The applicant may apply again for declaring him a juvenile and learned Sessions Judge is directed to hold an enquiry as provided under the Act and if he finds that the applicant is a Juvenile, he may refer for enquiry to the Juvenile Justice Board.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.