The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No.721 of 2013 Bishal Kumar @ Bishal Manjhi @ Bishal Kumar Paswan Versus ..... Petitioner The State of Jharkhand …. Opposite Party CORAM:
Legal Reasoning
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.C. MISHRA For the Petitioner For the State Mr. Abhay Kr. Chaturvedy A. P.P. : : ----- 4/23.8.2013 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 2. Petitioner is aggrieved by the Judgment dated 21st March, 2013 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Latehar, in Cr. Appeal No.6 of 2012. It appears that the said criminal appeal was filed against the order dated 3.3.2013 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Ranchi, in G.R. Case No.517 of 2011, by which the bail application of the juvenile petitioner was rejected. However, the learned Sessions Judge doubted the very order dated 19.11.2011 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Latehar, in G.R. Case No.517 of 2011, declaring the petitioner to be a juvenile, and for the reasons detailed in the order, the learned Sessions Judge held that the petitioner was not a juvenile on the date of occurrence and has directed for sending him back to the Court of the Sessions Judge for facing the trial in the murder case. It appears from paragraph – 5 of the impugned Judgment that the main case is pending for trial before the learned Sessions Judge, Latehar. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order passed by the Court below is absolutely illegal, in as much as, the appeal was not filed against the order, by which the petitioner was declared to be a juvenile, rather the appeal was filed against the order dated 3.3.2013 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Ranchi, in G.R. Case No.517 of 2011, whereby the application for bail filed by the juvenile petitioner was dismissed. Learned Sessions Judge, however, entered into an enquiry and held that the petitioner was not a juvenile and has directed the Juvenile Justice Board to send the record of the petitioner to his court for facing the trial. Learned counsel further submitted that even the enquiry was not properly conducted by the learned Sessions Judge, as the -2- procedure prescribed under the Rule 12 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, has not been properly followed by the Court below. Learned counsel accordingly, submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Latehar, cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and it is a fit case for release the petitioner on bail. 4. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand has submitted that the learned Sessions Judge has given cogent reasons for holding that the petitioner was not a juvenile on the date of occurrence, and as such there is no illegality in the impugned order. 5. From the perusal of the record it is apparent that the order dated 19.11.2011, passed by the learned C.J.M. Latehar, by which the petitioner was declared to be a juvenile is not a proper order, as no enquiry whatsoever was conducted by the learned C.J.M. Latehar, while declaring the petitioner to be a juvenile. The petitioner has been held to be a juvenile only on the basis of the record of another case, without holding any independent enquiry. 6. After having heard learned counsels for both the sides, and upon going through the record, I am of the considered view that both the orders, i.e., the order dated 19.11.2011 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Latehar, in G.R. Case No.517 of 2011, whereby the petitioner was declared to be a juvenile, as also the Judgment dated 21st March 2013, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Latehar, in Cr. Appeal No.6 of 2012, cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. It is apparent from the order dated 19.11.2011 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Latehar, that the said order was passed without entering into any enquiry into the juvenility of the petitioner. Similarly, the impugned Judgment dated 21st March, 2013, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Latehar, also shows that the Court below while holding that the petitioner was not a juvenile, has only held that the certificate produced by the petitioner, claiming to be a juvenile was not genuine. It is apparent from the impugned Judgment that the proper procedure prescribed under Section 7A of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children), Act, read with Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, have not been followed by the -3- learned Sessions Judge, which clearly prescribes that in absence of any birth certificate etc., the opinion of the duly constituted Medical Board has to be obtained for determining the age of the juvenile. As both these orders cannot be sustained in the eyes of law, in my considered view, this is fit case for exercising the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., for setting aside both the said orders and for directing the Court below to decide the claim of juvenility the petitioner in accordance with law. 7. Accordingly, in exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., the order dated 19.11.2011 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Latehar, in G.R. Case No.517 of 2011, as contained in Annexure-3 to this application, as also the Judgment dated 21st day of March, 2013, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Latehar, in Cr. Appeal No.6 of 2012, are hereby, set aside. The learned Sessions Judge, Latehar, or the Court of Session, where the trial is presently pending, is directed to decide the claim of juvenility of the petitioner and to pass the appropriate order in accordance with law, after proper enquiry in the matter in accordance with law. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is in custody since about two years. As such, the Court below is directed to pass the appropriate order on the claim of the juvenility of the petitioner, as early as possible. The Juvenile Justice Board, Ranchi, is directed to send back the records of the petitioner to the Court of Session, where the trial of the main case is pending. 8.
Decision
With these directions, this revision application stands disposed of. Let this order be communicated to the Courts concerned for the needful. R.Kumar (H. C. Mishra, J)