Court No. - 55
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 189 of 2002 Revisionist :- Omkar Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Nasiruzzaman Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,Dharmendra Singhal
Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Srivastava,J.
None is present in the revised list from the side of revisionist. Sri Rajesh Kumar, Advocate holding brief of Sri Dharmendra Singhal, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and learned A.G.A. are present.
From perusal of order sheets, it appears that on earlier occasions also, none was present on behalf of the revisionist to press this revision.
This revision has been filed against the order dated 16.01.2002, passed by Special Judge, Aligarh, in Application No. 74 Kha, filed in Sessions Trial No. 1215 of 1999 (State vs. Mukhtyar and others), under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302 I.P.C., Police Station Lodha, District Aligarh by which the learned trial court has separated the trial of the opposite party no. 2 from the sessions trial.
Brief facts of the case is that an Application No. 74 Kha was given by opposite party no. 2 stating that he is below the age of 16 years and, therefore, the Juvenile Justice Board has exclusive jurisdiction to dispose of the case in respect of him. The aforesaid application No. 74 Kha was allowed and the file was separated and was sent to the Juvenile Justice Board.
It has been alleged by the revisionist that in order to delay the disposal of the sessions trial, that application was given and the order passed there on, is erroneous, illegal, without jurisdiction and the same is liable to be set aside.
From perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the learned trial court on the basis of material available on record, prima- facie found that the age of the opposite party no. 2 as 17 years at the time of commission of the offence.
In view of above finding, the impugned order appears to be completely justified as the exclusive jurisdiction over the matter was with the Juvenile Justice Board.
It also appears from the impugned order that the case of the opposite party no. 2 was separated and sent to Juvenile Justice Board in order to determine whether the applicant was juvenile or not at the time of commission of offence.
In view of the scheme of the Juvenile Justice Act, the recourse adopted by the learned trial court is justified and legal. By the impugned order, the matter has not been finally disposed of but the Juvenile Justice Board has only passed the order of determining the age of the opposite party no. 2 at the time of commission of the offence, as such I find no illegality, irregularity, impropriety or any jurisdictional error in the impugned order. The revision lacks merit and the same is liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly, the revision is dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
Order Date :- 28.11.2019 sailesh