Court No. - 46
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2087 of 2002 Revisionist :- Prayas Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Revisionist :- Amit Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,J.
No one is present on behalf of the revisionist to press this revision even in the revised call.
Present revision has been filed challenging the order dated 20.9.2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffar Nagar in S.T. No. 294 of 2001 (State vs. Ajendra @ Pappu and others) whereby application filed by the revisionist for separating the trial from other accused persons on the ground of revisionist being juvenile has been rejected.
Initially interim order was granted only upto 7.1.2002 to the effect that the case be listed on 7.1.2003 and till then judgement shall not be delivered. On 7.1.2003 the interim order was extended till the next date of listing. Now this case has been listed but no one is present on behalf of the revisionist.
From perusal of revision, It appears that the ground taken is that the revisionist was entitled for benefit of Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2002 on the ground that he was only 16 years 11 months and 22 days old on the date of on the date of incident. The Court below has recorded a finding that the Act of 2002 was made application vide notification dated 28.2.2001, according to which the same will be applicable w.e.f. 1.4.2001 and Section 20 of the Act clearly provides that the same was applied only to the incidences that have taken place after 1.4.2001 and no such benefit can be extended to the accused persons regarding incidences that have been taken prior to that.
From perusal of the record, I find that nothing material could be pointed out to indicate that the Court below has committed jurisdictional error or illegality in exercising his power to take cognizance in the matter.
In such view of the matter, I do not find any good ground to interfere in the order impugned herein.
Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
Present revision is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed.
Since the trial is of the year 2001, the Court below shall make every effort to expedite the trial and decide the same.
Office is directed to communicated this order to the Court below by FAX within three weeks.
Order Date :- 31.3.2018 Abhishek