Ashish Mishra v. State of U.P.) passed by learned Upper Sessions Judge, Court no
Case Details
Acts & Sections
Cited in this judgment
2. Heard Sri Ajay Shukla learned Advocate, holding brief of Sri Vinayak Mishra, learned Counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State.
3. The instant revision has been preferred seeking following main relief(s):- "i) To determining and declare the applicant a juvenile and treat his trial according to law. ii) To set aside/revoke, quash the impugned and non speaking order dated 13.03.2000 passed by The Juvenile Justice Court/Board, Lucknow as well as the impugned order dated 22.07.2025 in Criminal Miscellaneous case no. 4228/2025 (Ashish Mishra vs State of U.P.) passed by learned Upper Sessions Judge, Court no.4 / Special Judge, (E.C.Act), Lucknow being beyond any reason, illegal, biased, against the natural and substantial justice Otherwise the revisionist will suffer irreparable and fatal loss of all aspects including his remaining life."
4. By means of the present revision, the revisionist has impeached the order dated 13.03.2000 passed by the Juvenile Justice Court/Board, in Case No. 498/99 under Sections Lucknow 147/148/149/302/506 IPC and 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station-Maniyaon, District-Lucknow. The order dated 13.03.2000 reads as under:- (in short 'JJB') "सुना। कागजात का अवलोकन िकया। यह जमानत ्ऺाथर्ना प्ऴ ्ऺाथर्/अिभयु्व अशाीष िम्शा की ओर से जमानत अंतगर्त धारा 147, 148, 149,302,506 भा०दं०सं० सपिठत धारा 7 ि्वमनल लॉ अमेन्डमेन्ट एक्ट ्ऺस्तुत िकया गया है। सवर््ऺथम यह िनिणत िकया जाना है िक क्या ्ऺाथर्/अिभयु्व आशीष िम्शा िकशोर अपचारी की ्शेणी में आता है अथवा नहीं? इस संबंध में प्ऴावली पर ्ऺाथर् अिभयु्व आशीष िम्शा की मुख्य िचिकत्स िधकारी, लखनऊ ्षारा ्ऺेिषत आख्या उपलब्ध है िजसमें रेिडयोलॉिजस्ट की आख्या के आधार पर अिभयु्व की आयु 20 वषर् दशार्यी गई 2 CRLR No. 989 of 2025 है। यिद इसमें 2 वषर् का अन्तर भी माना जाये तो भी अिभयु्व की आयु लगभग 18 वषर् आती है । स्वयं अिभयु्व के कथनानुसार, जो उसने मुख्य िचिकत्सािधकारी, लखनऊ के सम्ष िदया था, उसकी उ्ा साढ़े सोलह वषर् है । अतः ऐसी िस्थित में अिभयु्व 16 वषर् से अिधक आयु का है और तद्नुसार वह िकशोर अपचारी की ्शेणी में नहीं आता। जमानत अतः इस ्ऺाथर्ना प्ऴ को िनस्तािरत करने का ्षे्ऴािधकार इस न्यायालय को नहीं है। तद्नुसार यह जमानत ्ऺाथर्ना प्ऴ संबंिधत न्यायालय अथार्त माननीय मुख्य न्याियक मिजस््िेट, लखनऊ के सामने वास्ते अि्षम आदेश ्ऺस्तुत हो।"
5. The revisionist has also impeached the order dated 22.07.2025 passed by Upper Sessions Judge, Court no.4 / Special Judge, (E.C.Act), Lucknow (in short 'Appellate Court'), passed in Criminal Miscellaneous case no. 4228/2025 (Ashish Mishra vs State of U.P.).
6. Vide order dated 22.07.2025, the Appellate Court rejected the application seeking condonation of delay in challenging the order dated 13.03.2000, on the ground that a huge delay i.e. about 25 years and 81 days occurred between the order of JJB dated 13.03.2000 and filing of the appeal in the year 2025 has not been explained. The relevant portion of order dated 22.07.2025 reads as under:- "4. प्ऴावली के अवलोकन से स्प्ि है िक आवेदक ्षारा ्ऺधान मिजस््िेट, िकशोर न्यायालय, लखनऊ के आदेश िदनांिकत 13-03-2000 के िवरु्ध अपील ्ऺस्तुत की गयी है एवं उसके िवलम्ब माफी ्ऺाथर्नाप्ऴ अंतर्गत धारा-5 पिरसीमा अिधिनयम के सम्बन्ध में िकया गया कथन िक अिधव्वा व अन्य शािमल ्ििक््तयों की गलती से िवलम्ब हुआ। िवलम्ब के सम्बन्ध में िदया गया स्प्िीकरण पयार्प्त नहीं है। अपील दािखल करने में 25 वषर् 81 िदन का िवलम्ब कािरत िकया गया है एवं िवलम्ब के सम्बन्ध में िदन-्ऺितिदन का स्प्िीकरण िदया जाना चािहए। अपील दािखल करने में अत्यन्त िवलम्ब कािरत की गयी है।
5. मामले के तथ्यों व पिरिस्थितयों में ्ऺाथर्नाप्ऴ को स्वीकार िकये जाने का कोई िविधक औिचत्य नहीं है। तदनुसार ्ऺाथर्नाप्ऴ खािरज िकये जाने योग्य है। आदेश 6. तदनुसार आवेदक का ्ऺाथर्नाप्ऴ बी-6 अंतगर्त धारा-5 पिरसीमा अिधिनयम खािरज िकया जाता है। प्ऴावली िनयमानुसार दािखल दफ्तर हो।"
7. Brief facts of the case are as under:- (i) An FIR No. 498/1999 was lodged at Police Station-Maniyaon, District- Lucknow under Sections 147/148/149/302/506 IPC and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act, after taking note of the allegations levelled in the written report. (ii) The appellant is one of the accused. (iii) As per FIR the named accused are Anil Singh, Ashish Mishra (revisionist), Abishek Pandey, Arvind Pandey, Ranjeet, Gurmeet Singh, Hari Om Shukla, Ashish Tiwari, Satish alias Mintu and Rachit Srivastava. (iv) The Sessions Trial No. 811/2001, arising out of FIR/Case Crime No.498/1999, is still pending. (v) The Sessions Trial No. 1732/2024 related to offence under Section 3/25 Arms Act, arising out of FIR/Case Crime No. 499 of 1999, lodged based upon the recovery of weapon, is still pending. (vi) During the pendency of criminal case, an application dated 05.02.2000 claiming juvenility was preferred by the revisionist. In support of this application an affidavit was also filed. 3 CRLR No. 989 of 2025 (vii) The revisionist claimed juvenility on the basis of 'Transfer Certificate' related to Class VII and Class VIII of 'Herald Public School, Ram Nagar, Alambagh, Lucknow. (viii) In the 'Transfer Certificate' the date of birth of the revisionist has been mentioned as 27.09.1984. (ix) The JJB rejected the claim of juvenility of the revisionist vide order dated 13.03.2000, quoted above, affirmed by the Appellate Court vide order dated 22.07.2025, whereby the Appellate Court rejected the application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal challenging the order dated 13.03.2000.
8. In the aforesaid background, the present revision has been filed.
9. Impeaching the impugned order(s), it is stated that claim of the juvenility has been rejected without adopting the procedure prescribed under the relevant provisions according to which the JJB was under obligation to verify the genuineness of 'Transfer Certificate' based upon which the revisionist claimed the juvenility on the basis of date of birth mentioned therein i.e. 27.09.1984.
10. In support of aforesaid, reliance has been placed on the following judgments passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court:-
2. Heard Sri Ajay Shukla learned Advocate, holding brief of Sri Vinayak Mishra, learned Counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State.
3. The instant revision has been preferred seeking following main relief(s):- "i) To determining and declare the applicant a juvenile and treat his trial according to law. ii) To set aside/revoke, quash the impugned and non speaking order dated 13.03.2000 passed by The Juvenile Justice Court/Board, Lucknow as well as the impugned order dated 22.07.2025 in Criminal Miscellaneous case no. 4228/2025 (Ashish Mishra vs State of U.P.) passed by learned Upper Sessions Judge, Court no.4 / Special Judge, (E.C.Act), Lucknow being beyond any reason, illegal, biased, against the natural and substantial justice Otherwise the revisionist will suffer irreparable and fatal loss of all aspects including his remaining life."
4. By means of the present revision, the revisionist has impeached the order dated 13.03.2000 passed by the Juvenile Justice Court/Board, in Case No. 498/99 under Sections Lucknow 147/148/149/302/506 IPC and 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station-Maniyaon, District-Lucknow. The order dated 13.03.2000 reads as under:- (in short 'JJB') "सुना। कागजात का अवलोकन िकया। यह जमानत ्ऺाथर्ना प्ऴ ्ऺाथर्/अिभयु्व अशाीष िम्शा की ओर से जमानत अंतगर्त धारा 147, 148, 149,302,506 भा०दं०सं० सपिठत धारा 7 ि्वमनल लॉ अमेन्डमेन्ट एक्ट ्ऺस्तुत िकया गया है। सवर््ऺथम यह िनिणत िकया जाना है िक क्या ्ऺाथर्/अिभयु्व आशीष िम्शा िकशोर अपचारी की ्शेणी में आता है अथवा नहीं? इस संबंध में प्ऴावली पर ्ऺाथर् अिभयु्व आशीष िम्शा की मुख्य िचिकत्स िधकारी, लखनऊ ्षारा ्ऺेिषत आख्या उपलब्ध है िजसमें रेिडयोलॉिजस्ट की आख्या के आधार पर अिभयु्व की आयु 20 वषर् दशार्यी गई 2 CRLR No. 989 of 2025 है। यिद इसमें 2 वषर् का अन्तर भी माना जाये तो भी अिभयु्व की आयु लगभग 18 वषर् आती है । स्वयं अिभयु्व के कथनानुसार, जो उसने मुख्य िचिकत्सािधकारी, लखनऊ के सम्ष िदया था, उसकी उ्ा साढ़े सोलह वषर् है । अतः ऐसी िस्थित में अिभयु्व 16 वषर् से अिधक आयु का है और तद्नुसार वह िकशोर अपचारी की ्शेणी में नहीं आता। जमानत अतः इस ्ऺाथर्ना प्ऴ को िनस्तािरत करने का ्षे्ऴािधकार इस न्यायालय को नहीं है। तद्नुसार यह जमानत ्ऺाथर्ना प्ऴ संबंिधत न्यायालय अथार्त माननीय मुख्य न्याियक मिजस््िेट, लखनऊ के सामने वास्ते अि्षम आदेश ्ऺस्तुत हो।"
5. The revisionist has also impeached the order dated 22.07.2025 passed by Upper Sessions Judge, Court no.4 / Special Judge, (E.C.Act), Lucknow (in short 'Appellate Court'), passed in Criminal Miscellaneous case no. 4228/2025 (Ashish Mishra vs State of U.P.).
6. Vide order dated 22.07.2025, the Appellate Court rejected the application seeking condonation of delay in challenging the order dated 13.03.2000, on the ground that a huge delay i.e. about 25 years and 81 days occurred between the order of JJB dated 13.03.2000 and filing of the appeal in the year 2025 has not been explained. The relevant portion of order dated 22.07.2025 reads as under:- "4. प्ऴावली के अवलोकन से स्प्ि है िक आवेदक ्षारा ्ऺधान मिजस््िेट, िकशोर न्यायालय, लखनऊ के आदेश िदनांिकत 13-03-2000 के िवरु्ध अपील ्ऺस्तुत की गयी है एवं उसके िवलम्ब माफी ्ऺाथर्नाप्ऴ अंतर्गत धारा-5 पिरसीमा अिधिनयम के सम्बन्ध में िकया गया कथन िक अिधव्वा व अन्य शािमल ्ििक््तयों की गलती से िवलम्ब हुआ। िवलम्ब के सम्बन्ध में िदया गया स्प्िीकरण पयार्प्त नहीं है। अपील दािखल करने में 25 वषर् 81 िदन का िवलम्ब कािरत िकया गया है एवं िवलम्ब के सम्बन्ध में िदन-्ऺितिदन का स्प्िीकरण िदया जाना चािहए। अपील दािखल करने में अत्यन्त िवलम्ब कािरत की गयी है।
5. मामले के तथ्यों व पिरिस्थितयों में ्ऺाथर्नाप्ऴ को स्वीकार िकये जाने का कोई िविधक औिचत्य नहीं है। तदनुसार ्ऺाथर्नाप्ऴ खािरज िकये जाने योग्य है। आदेश 6. तदनुसार आवेदक का ्ऺाथर्नाप्ऴ बी-6 अंतगर्त धारा-5 पिरसीमा अिधिनयम खािरज िकया जाता है। प्ऴावली िनयमानुसार दािखल दफ्तर हो।"
7. Brief facts of the case are as under:- (i) An FIR No. 498/1999 was lodged at Police Station-Maniyaon, District- Lucknow under Sections 147/148/149/302/506 IPC and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act, after taking note of the allegations levelled in the written report. (ii) The appellant is one of the accused. (iii) As per FIR the named accused are Anil Singh, Ashish Mishra (revisionist), Abishek Pandey, Arvind Pandey, Ranjeet, Gurmeet Singh, Hari Om Shukla, Ashish Tiwari, Satish alias Mintu and Rachit Srivastava. (iv) The Sessions Trial No. 811/2001, arising out of FIR/Case Crime No.498/1999, is still pending. (v) The Sessions Trial No. 1732/2024 related to offence under Section 3/25 Arms Act, arising out of FIR/Case Crime No. 499 of 1999, lodged based upon the recovery of weapon, is still pending. (vi) During the pendency of criminal case, an application dated 05.02.2000 claiming juvenility was preferred by the revisionist. In support of this application an affidavit was also filed. 3 CRLR No. 989 of 2025 (vii) The revisionist claimed juvenility on the basis of 'Transfer Certificate' related to Class VII and Class VIII of 'Herald Public School, Ram Nagar, Alambagh, Lucknow. (viii) In the 'Transfer Certificate' the date of birth of the revisionist has been mentioned as 27.09.1984. (ix) The JJB rejected the claim of juvenility of the revisionist vide order dated 13.03.2000, quoted above, affirmed by the Appellate Court vide order dated 22.07.2025, whereby the Appellate Court rejected the application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal challenging the order dated 13.03.2000.
8. In the aforesaid background, the present revision has been filed.
9. Impeaching the impugned order(s), it is stated that claim of the juvenility has been rejected without adopting the procedure prescribed under the relevant provisions according to which the JJB was under obligation to verify the genuineness of 'Transfer Certificate' based upon which the revisionist claimed the juvenility on the basis of date of birth mentioned therein i.e. 27.09.1984.
10. In support of aforesaid, reliance has been placed on the following judgments passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court:-