Court No. - 45
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 695 of 2018 Revisionist :- Satish Kewat (Minor) Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Shiv Babu Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Shashi Kant Gupta,J.
Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A.
This revision has been filed with a prayer to quash the order dated 22.12.2017 passed by the Principal Magistrate,Juvenile Justice Board, Banda in criminal case no. 12/9/2017, State Vs. Satish Kewat , arising out of case crime no. 387/2015, under sections 304,342 I.P.C. P.S. Kotwali Nagar District Banda whereby the application filed by the complainant Shaloo Gupta under section 216 Cr.P.C. for framing charges against the revisionist Satish Kewat under section 304,342 I.P.C. has been allowed.
Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that in the present case the Investigating Officer, after making thorough investigation submitted charge sheet against the co accused Bhuvendra Chaurasiya under section 304 and 342 I.P.C. and against the remaining accused including the revisionist submitted charge sheet under sections 323 and 341 I.P.C. He further submitted that the trial of co accused Bhuvendra Chaurasiya is going on before the sessions court and the revisionist being juvenile, his case was sent to the court of Juvenile Justice Board for trial under sections 323 and 341 I.P.C. and the Principal Judge,Juvenile Justice Board without application of mind has illegally altered the charges under sections 304 and 342 I.P.C. without there being any cogent, convincing and additional evidence to that effect.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. submitted that the case of the revisionist is similar to that of other co accused namely Bhuvendra Chaurasiya against whom charges have been framed under sections 304 and 342 I.P.C. and they are being tried before the sessions court for the said offences.It was further submitted that Juvenile Justice Board has not committed any illegality or irregularity while altering the charges under sections 304 and 342 I.P.C. by means of the impugned order. In support of his contention he relied upon the provisions contained under sections 216 and 222 Cr.P.C. Sub clauses ( 1) and (2) of Section 222 Cr.P.C. runs as under:
"(1) When a person is charged with an offence consisting of several particuars, a combination of some only of which constitutes a complete minor offence, and such combination is proved, but the remaining particulars are not proved, he may be convicted of the minor offence, though he was not charged with it.
(2) When a person is charged with an offence and facts are proved which reduce it to a minor offence, he may be convicted of the minor offence, although he is not charged with it."
The aforesaid provisions clearly provide that when a person is charged with an offence and during trial the facts are proved that the accused has committed a minor offence, he may be convicted of the minor offence, although he was not charged with it .
In view of the above, I do not find that any prejudice has been caused to the revisionist by passing the impugned order. It is alway open for the concerned Court/ Juvenile Justice Board to alter or add to any charge at any time before judgment is pronounced.
The present revision being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed.
Order Date :- 28.3.2018 MLK