Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

RAM BABU versus STATE OF U.P. & ANOTHER

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Ram Babu v. State Of U.P. & Another - APPLICATION U/s 482 No. 5522 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 15496 (6 September 2006)

 

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 OF ALLAHABAD

Court No.10

Criminal Misc.  Application no.5522 of 2006

 Ram  Babu   Vs. State of U.P. and  another.

Hon'ble R.K.Rastogi,J

This is an application  for quashing the  order dated 26.4.2006 passed by the  Addl. District  and Sessions Judge  FTC Court no.22, Allahabad  in S.T. No. 517 of 2004 State Vs.  Ram Abhilash  and another

The facts relevant  for disposal of  this application are that the applicant  is accused  in  the aforesaid  Sessions Trial  under section 302 I.P.C. . The prosecution evidence appears to  have been  concluded  before the trial Court . After completion of  that evidence the accused applicant  Ram Babu moved an application  before the trial court  for declaring  that  he was  juvenile on the date of the incident and so his case should be  separated from  other accused and  should be sent to the  Juvenile Justice Board. The above application  was rejected   by the learned   Addl. Sessions  Judge  vide  order dated 26.4.06. Aggrieved with that order the applicant has filed this application under section 482 Cr.P.C.

I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant and  the learned A.G.A.  for the State . None appeared on behalf of the opposite partyno.2  in spite of service of notice.

I have gone through  the order passed by  the  learned   Addl. Sessions Judge . He  had rejected the application on the ground that  this plea was not taken  at the initial stage  and it was taken  after conclusion  of  the entire   evidence and so   there was no justification   for  moving  this application at that  stage.

The applicant has filed a copy of the mark sheet of High School Examination  in which  his date of birth has been  shown  to be 10.5.1988. The date of  incident  is 6.4.2002. The applicant  has alleged that  he was  juvenile  on the date of incident.

Considering the submissions of both the  parties, I am of the view that  the application of the applicant could not be  rejected  solely  on the  ground that  it was  moved  at the belated stage after conclusion of  evidence. Such a plea can be  entertained  even at the stage of  appeal  as laid  down  by Hon'ble  Supreme Court  in the case of  Bhola Bhagat and others Vs. State of Bihar: 1997 (35) 835. Thus the  order passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge  can not be maintained  and is liable to  be  set aside.

Under the Juvenile  Justice ( Care  and  Protection of Children) Act,2000(  called as ' Act')  the question  regarding  juvenileship of a person  is to be   determined  by a  Juvenile Justice Board under section 14 of the  Act . The procedure as to how  the dispute  regarding  juvenileship  of  a person  is to be determined  has been  enumerated  in Rule 22 of  U.P. Juvenile  Justice ( Care  and  Protection of Children) Rules, 2004 ( Called as ' Rules'). Prior  to enforcement of   these Rules , the model  Rules  framed by the Central Government    under the Act  were applicable. Sub rule (5) of  the above Rule 22   runs as  under:

"(5) In every  case concerning   a juvenile or child, the Board  shall either  obtain:

(i) a birth  certificate  given by  a corporation   or a municipal  authority ; or

(ii)  a   date of birth  certificate  from the school first attended ;  or

(iii) matriculation or equivalent  certificates, if available ; and

(iv) In the absence of  (i) to (iii)  above,  the medical  opinion  by a duly  constituted  Medical  Board, subject  to a margin  of one year,  in deserving cases for  the  reasons  to be  recorded  by such Medical  Board, regarding his age; and , when passing  orders in such  case  shall,  after taking  into consideration  such evidence as may be available  or the  medical  opinion, as the case  may be, record a finding in respect  of his age."

The  Juvenile Justice Board shall  determine  the  juvenileship of the  applicant in accordance with the provision of the above  rule.

Accordingly, the order  dated  26.4.2006 passed by the  Addl. District  and Sessions Judge  FTC Court no.22, Allahabad  in S.T. No. 517 of 2004 State Vs.  Ram Abhilash  and another is set aside . The matter is remanded  back to the  Juvenile Justice Board, Allahabad  for determining the  juvenileship of the  applicant with a direction that  the Board shall, after  providing   opportunity  to the parties to produce additional  evidence, if any,  on the matter of age of  the applicant,   decide  the question  of age of juvenileship  of the applicant  in accordance with   sub rule  (5) of  Rule 22   referred to  above.  

The proceedings  of  S.T. No. 517 of 2004 State Vs.  Ram Abhilash  and another   pending before  Addl. District  and Sessions Judge  FTC Court no.22, Allahabad  shall remain stayed against the applicant  till the  finding on the point is recorded by the  Juvenile Justice Board. The matter shall proceed further  in accordance with law   after  the finding of  Juvenile Justice  Board.

The application  under section 482 Cr.P.C. is partly allowed  subject to the above directions.

Copies of this order shall be sent to  the Addl. District  & Sessions  Court no.22, Allahabad  and to the  Juvenile Justice Board, Allahabad   by  the Registry  for compliance. A copy of  this order shall  also be   issued to the accused applicant   free of cost who shall  alongwith  that  copy  appear  before the  Juvenile Justice Board , Allahabad on 11.10.2006.

6.9.2006

MLK


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.