AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 840 of 2024 X Juvenile & Anr. v. Revisionist(s)

By means of the instant criminal revision under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (in short "Act of 2015") the revisionist has impeached the order dated 02.07.2024, passed by the Session Judge, Ayodhya (Faizabad) (in short "Trial Court") in Criminal Misc. Case No. 51/2024 in S.T. No. 162 of 2020, arising out of Case Crime No.100/2019, under Sections 302/307/147/149/120-B/34 IPC, Police Station-Mawai, District-Faizabad (Ayodhya) whereby the trial court has rejected the claim of juvanility of the present revisionist. In the interest of justice, case is adjourned for the day. List this case on 12.02.2026. It is made clear that on the next date of listing, the case would not be adjourned in the absence of the counsel for the revisionist and appropriate orders would be passed in the case in first call even in the absence of counsel for the revisionist."

2. On 11.03.2026, this Court has passed the following orders:- "1. Case is called out. No one appeared on behalf of revisionist to press the instant bail revision.

2. Considering the earlier order dated 06.02.2026 as also the elections of the Bar, case is adjourned for the day.

3. List/put up this case on 16.03.2026 amongst top 30 cases in terms of earlier order where this Court observed that "It is made clear that on the next dates of listing, the case would not be adjourned in the absence of the counsel for the revisionist and appropriate orders would be passed in the case in first call even in absence of the counsel for the revisionist."

3. Today, when the case was called out, no one appeared on behalf of the revisionist to press this revision. However, learned A.G.A. is present for State. 4 Considering the aforesaid, nature of the instant revision, issue involved in the instant revision and huge pendency of cases as also that the present revision has yet not been admitted as also taking note of the observations of Hon'ble Apex Court in Madan Lal 2 CRLR No. 840 of 2024 Kapur vs. Rajiv Thapar and others, (2007) 7 SCC 623, quoted hereinunder, this Court with the assistance of learned A.G.A. proceeded to decide the instant revision: "4. The matter relates to administration of criminal justice. As held by this Court, a criminal matter cannot be dismissed for default and it must be decided on merits. Only on that ground the appeal deserves to be allowed.

5. Thus in Bani Singh v. State of U.P. [(1996) 4 SCC 720 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 848], a three-Judge Bench of this Court held that a criminal appeal should not be dismissed in default but should be decided on merits. If despite notice neither the appellant nor his counsel is present, the court should decide the appeal on merits. If the appellant is in jail the court can appoint a lawyer at State expense to assist it. This would equally apply to the respondent.