Heard Sri Dharmpal Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Mangal Rai, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Amit Daga, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and Sri Janardan Prakash, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
The present revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 18.09.2017 passed by the Sessions Judge, Hapur in Criminal Revision No. 78 of 2017 (Sharif Vs. State of U.P. and another) by which the court concerned has allowed the said revision and set aside the order dated 28.04.2017 passed by the court below and directed the Juvenile Justice Board, Hapur to hear both the parties, give them opportunity of adducing evidence and then decide the issue after proper inquiry as per law.
The brief facts of the case are that the First Information Report was registered on 19.01.2017 by Satya Pal Singh who gave a written information at Police Station Hapur Nagar, District Hapur informing the police that he was going to look after his fields on 19.01.2017 at 05:40 PM and found a dead body of an unknown person lying near the wall of the meat plant of Haji Nausad. The said report was entered into G.D. No. 46 dated 19.01.2017 at 19:30 hrs. Later on, Sharif submitted a written report to the police informing that the said dead body was of his son Firoz and that his son Firoz has been murdered by some unknown persons. The said application was given on 19.01.2017 at 19:30 hrs on the basis of which the said case was converted by the police and a regular crime number being Case Crime No. 83 of 2017 under Sections 302, 201 IPC, Police Station Hapur Nagar, District Hapur was registered against unknown persons. The investigation started and the inquest was conducted on the body of the deceased on 19.01.2017 and the postmortem examination was conducted on 20.01.2017. The doctor opined the death due to head injury. The investigation proceeded further and the statement of the first informant Sharif was recorded. Subsequently, the statement of Shoaeb, Shakeel and Mustakeem were recorded who have stated that the deceased Firoz was last seen with Anas (present revisionist) and co-accused Noor Alam who were real brothers and sons of Islam. On the said lead, the matter was taken up for electronic surveillance and from it the Investigating Officer came to a conclusion that the revisionist (Anas) had a few talks with the deceased Firoz on their mobiles. The revisionist was arrested on 24.01.2017 and one mobile phone was recovered from his possession. A confessional statement is further alleged to have been recorded by the police of the revisionist. Subsequently, the investigation concluded and charge sheet was submitted against the revisionist Anas and Noor Alam on 27.02.2017, on which, the Magistrate concerned took cognizance on 17.03.2017.
In the meantime, both the accused persons, namely, Anas and Noor Alam claimed juvenilety and an application dated 13.02.2017 was moved by them through their guardian/father Islam before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hapur with the prayer that they be declared juvenile. On the said application, police report was called for. The police submitted its report dated 18.02.2017 along with the evidences collected by it. Thereafter, the matter was referred to the Juvenile Justice Board, Hapur under the Juvenile Justice Board (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2000. The Juvenile Justice Board took evidence in the matter and vide its order dated 28.04.2017 declared the revisionist Anas (revisionist) as a juvenile on the day of occurrence i.e. 18.01.2017 and opined his age to be of 15 years and 19 days on the said date.
The first informant Satish challenged the order dated 28.04.2017 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board in a revision which was numbered as Criminal Revision No. 78 of 2017 (Sharif Vs. State of U.P. and another) before the District and Sessions Judge, Hapur. The revisional court vide its judgment and order dated 18.09.2017 allowed the revision, set aside the order dated 28.04.2017 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Hapur. The present revision is thus instituted before this Court.
Learned Senior Advocate for the revisionist argued that the revisional court fell in error while deciding the revision preferred before it. It is argued that the revisional court did not properly appreciate the order dated 28.04.2017, by which, the revisionist was declared a juvenile and without proper appreciation allowed the revision and passed the order impugned. It is argued that the evidence has led before the Juvenile Justice Board was sufficient enough and was also reliable and untainted in so far as it relates to its finding by which the Board has declared the revisionist to be a juvenile on the day of occurrence. It is argued that as such the order impugned be set aside and the present revision be allowed.
Per contra, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State of U.P. have rebutted the arguments of learned counsel for the revisionist. It is argued that the revisional court has passed the order impugned as per law and basing its conclusion on the settled principles of law, and as such, set aside the order dated 28.04.2017 which is a just and a proper order without any irregularity or illegality in it. It is argued that the findings as arrived upon by the revisional court are just, proper and legal and the order impugned is by exercise of proper jurisdiction and powers vested in the revisional court. It is argued that the present revision is devoid of any merits and there is no illegality or irregularity in the order impugned and as such be dismissed.
I have heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the record.
The revisional court though has allowed the revision and set aside the order dated 28.04.2017 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board but at the same instance has remanded the matter back to the Board for being heard and decided on merits after hearing the parties giving them opportunity to produce evidence. The order dated 18.09.2017 is in no manner detrimental to the revisionist as the matter has been remanded back and has been directed to be reheard and decided after granting opportunity to the parties in all respects. This Court does not find any irregularity or illegality in the order impugned.
The present revision is dismissed.
However, the revisionist is stated to be in jail. It is directed that the compliance of the order dated 18.09.2017 passed by the revisional court be done forthwith and the matter be decided by the Juvenile Justice Board, Hapur as directed at is end, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of a copy of this order.
The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.
The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.
The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.
Order Date :- 9.2.2021 / M. ARIF (Samit Gopal, J.)