High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Rakesh Kumar v. State Of U.P. - CRIMINAL REVISION No. 1332 of 2006  RD-AH 16715 (22 September 2006)
CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 1952 OF 2006
Mool Chand Vishwakarma vs. State of U.P. & another
A N D
CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 1332 OF 2006
Rakesh Kumar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
Hon. K.N. Sinha, J.
The brief facts, giving rise to these revisions, are that revisionist Rakesh Kumar (of Criminal Revision No.1332/2006) lodged a report under Section 302 Indian Penal Code, which was entered at G.D. No. 12 at 9.45 AM on 3.2.2006, stating that the dead body of Rajesh Kumar Vishwakarma aged about 8 years and Santosh Kumar Vishwakarma aged about 7 years were found near railway crossing Bagaha in a well. Ganesh Kumar son of revisionist Mool Chand Vishwakarma (of Criminal Revision No.1952/2006) was named in the report and ultimately charge-sheeted. He was declared juvenile by order dated 25.2.2006 passed in Misc. Application No. 110/2006 by the Sessions Judge, against which a revision no. 1332/2006 was filed by Rakesh Kumar.
Further, after Ganesh Kumar son of revisionist Mool Chand Vishwakarma was declared juvenile, an application of custody was moved before the Sessions Judge under section 11 of The Juvenile Justice (Care And Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as Act), which was rejected by the Sessions Judge, by order dated 21.3.2006, against which revision No. 1952/2006 was filed.
I have heard Sri D.N. Wali, learned counsel for revisionist Mool Chand Vishwakarma and Sri L.P. Singh learned counsel for the revisionist Rakesh Kumar. Both of them have also opposed the revision of each other. So far as revision no. 1332/2006 filed by Rakesh Kumar is concerned, the revisionist has filed extract of Pariwar Register as Annexure SA-2 showing that Ganesh Kumar son of Mool Chand Vishwakarma is not juvenile. The extract of Pariwar Register (Annexure SA-2) apparently appears to be false as two children had born within span of twelve days, one on 2.7.1986 and other on 14.7.1986, which is patently false. Thus, the pariwar register is patently wrong. The high school certificate shows the date of birth to be 1.7.1990. The occurrence took place on 2.2.2006 and thus Ganesh Kumar son of revisionist Mool Chand Vishwakarma has rightly been declared as juvenile. Thus, revision no.1332/2006 is devoid of any force and is liable to be dismissed.
So far as revision no. 1952/2006 is concerned, no application has been moved before the Sessions Judge under section 12 of the Juvenile Act for the release of the juvenile on bail but the application has been moved for custody. Learned counsel for the revisionist has referred to section 11 and section 2(d) of the Act. Both the provisions are not applicable in the present case.
Section 2(d) of the Act defines ''child in need of care and protection'. It does not cover a child under the judicial custody.
So far as Section 11 of the Act is concerned, it defines the right of the person, under whom the juvenile is placed, that he shall act as parent and shall be responsible for his maintenance. This provision also does not apply. Learned Sessions Judge Allahabad has rightly dismissed the application by his order dated 21.3.2006. Thus, revision no.1952/2006 is also devoid of any force and is liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly, Criminal Revision No. 1332/2006 and Criminal Revision No. 1952/2006 are hereby dismissed.
However, in spite of dismissal of both the criminal revisions, revisionist Mool Chand Vishwakarma may seek remedy of bail as available under The Juvenile Justice (Care And Protection of Children) Act, 2000.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.