# Bilal Ahmad & Ors. Revisionists v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2025) 7 ILRA 1014
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-07-31
- **Case number:** Criminal Revision No. 1408 of 2024
- **Bench:** Subhash Vidyarthi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/bilal-ahmad-ors-revisionists-v-state-of-u-p-anr-53587
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

during investigation, under Section 319 of
the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, based
on the testimony of prosecution witnesses
recorded during trial, and whether the
revisional court can interfere with such
discretionary exercise of power by the
trial court.

Headnotes
7 All. Bilal Ahmad & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1015
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - ss. 319,
397, 401 - Summoning of additional
accused - Persons named in FIR but not
charge-sheeted - Degree of satisfaction
required
-
Scope
of
revisional
interference - Discretion of trial court.

Held:

Section 319 Cr.P.C.-empowers a trial court to
summon any person appearing to be guilty of
an offence, even if not charge-sheeted-based on
evidence
adduced
during
trial-"evidence"
contemplated under Section 319 refers to the
material recorded before the trial court-not
merely
the
material
collected
during
investigation-investigative material may be used
only for corroboration, not for contradiction or
disbelief of trial evidence. [Paras 19-20]

Power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is discretionary
and extraordinary - to be exercised sparingly
and with caution- when the evidence led before
the court-discloses strong and cogent material-
showing more than a prima facie case-though
short of proof sufficient for conviction. [Paras
16-18]

Revisional court, while examining an order
passed under Section 319 Cr.P.C.-can only test
whether
the
discretion
was
exercised
in
accordance with law-upon consideration of
relevant material- cannot substitute its own
opinion
merely
because
another
view
is
possible-trial court had applied the correct legal
principles
and
exercised
its
discretion
judiciously-High Court refused to interfere.
[Paras 21-23] (E-14)

Revision dismissed - Summoning order upheld
- Interim order vacated.

Case Law Cited

Michael Machado & Anr. v. Central Bureau
of Investigation & Anr., AIR 2000 SC 1127
- referred to; Hardeep Singh v. State of
Punjab & Ors., (2014) 3 SCC 92 - applied;
Brijendra
Singh
&
Ors.
v. State
of
Rajasthan, (2017) 7 SCC 706 - followed;
Sunil Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P.,
Criminal Appeal No. 395 of 2019, decided
on 27.02.2019 - referred to.

List of Acts / Statutes
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Indian
Penal
Code,
1860;
Criminal
Law
Amendment Act, 1932.

List of Keywords
Criminal
revision;
Summoning
under
Section 319 Cr.P.C.; Persons not chargesheeted; Degree of satisfaction; Strong
and
cogent
evidence;
Discretionary
power; Revisional jurisdiction; Limited
interference; Prima facie case; Standard
of proof.

Case Arising From
Criminal Revision under Sections 397/401 Cr.P.C.
challenging order dated 23 October 2024 passed
by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 1,
Sultanpur, in Sessions Trial No. 210 of 2022
(State v. Iqbal Hussain & Others), whereby the
revisionists were summoned under Section 319
Cr.P.C. to face trial in Case Crime No. 305 of
2020
under
Sections
302/149,
307/149,
323/149, 504, 506 IPC and Section 7 of the
Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1932.

Appearance for Parties
For the Revisionists : Shri Arun Sinha, Shri
Ram
Chandra
Singh,
Shri
UmangAgarwal
For
the
Opposite
Parties
:
Learned
Government Advocate, Shri Manik Mishra, Shri
Ramakar Shukla

## Text

1014 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
as suit for maintenance and after adopting
the procedure as prescribed and upon
consideration of pleadings and evidence on
record under the provision of Act of 1956,
if the Family Court finds that the case for
maintenance is made out, the court can
order for maintenance to avoid multiplicity
of suits, but not on the basis of summary
proceedings under Section 125 CrPC. The
remedy for challenging the order passed
under both the proceedings are also
separate as discussed above.

25. In view of above, this Court is of
the view that the Family Court, while
deciding the application under Section 125
CrPC in the present case could not have
allowed the maintenance under Section
20(3) of the Act of 1956 without
considering the relevant factors to be
considered and recording finding in regard
to those, but the learned Family Court
without considering the law as discussed
above and misinterpreting the judgment of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of
Abhilasha
vs.
Parkash
and
others
(Supra), allowed the application under
Section 125 CrPC and awarded the
maintenance under Section 20(3) of the Act
of 1956. Thus, the same is not sustainable
in the eyes of law and liable to be set-aside.

26. In view of above and the
consensus among learned counsel for the
parties, the revision is allowed. The
impugned judgment and order 30.07.2024
passed in Criminal Misc. Case No. 280 of
2023; Kumari Neha Pandey vs. Anurag
Pandey under Section 125 of CrPC by
Principal Judge, Family Court, District
Sultanpur is hereby set aside. The matter is
remitted back to the concerned Family
Court, where the parties shall appear on
18.08.2025 on which date an application
may be moved by the respondent no. 2 for
converting the application under Section
125 CrPC into a suit under Section 20(3) of
the Act of 1956 and the Family Court shall
consider and pass appropriate order thereon
in
accordance
with
law
and
the
observations made here-in-above in this
order on the same day or within two weeks
thereafter and the Family Court shall
proceed accordingly and in such case make
endeavour to decide the suit expeditiously
and preferably within a period of six
months
without
granting
unnecessary
adjournment to either of the parties. It is
also expected that the parties shall assist the
court in expeditious disposal of the case.
----------
(2025) 7 ILRA 1014
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 31.07.2025
BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

Criminal Revision No. 1408 of 2024

Bilal Ahmad & Ors. ...Revisionists
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Revisionists:
Arun Sinha, Ram Chandra Singh, Umang
Agarwal

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A., Manik Mishra, Ramakar Shukla,
B/R0865
Issue for Consideration
Whether the trial court was justified in
summoning persons, earlier exonerated
during investigation, under Section 319 of
the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, based
on the testimony of prosecution witnesses
recorded during trial, and whether the
revisional court can interfere with such
discretionary exercise of power by the
trial court.

Headnotes
7 All. Bilal Ahmad & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1015
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - ss. 319,
397, 401 - Summoning of additional
accused - Persons named in FIR but not
charge-sheeted - Degree of satisfaction
required
-
Scope
of
revisional
interference - Discretion of trial court.

Held:

Section 319 Cr.P.C.-empowers a trial court to
summon any person appearing to be guilty of
an offence, even if not charge-sheeted-based on
evidence
adduced
during
trial-"evidence"
contemplated under Section 319 refers to the
material recorded before the trial court-not
merely
the
material
collected
during
investigation-investigative material may be used
only for corroboration, not for contradiction or
disbelief of trial evidence. [Paras 19-20]

Power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is discretionary
and extraordinary - to be exercised sparingly
and with caution- when the evidence led before
the court-discloses strong and cogent material-
showing more than a prima facie case-though
short of proof sufficient for conviction. [Paras
16-18]

Revisional court, while examining an order
passed under Section 319 Cr.P.C.-can only test
whether
the
discretion
was
exercised
in
accordance with law-upon consideration of
relevant material- cannot substitute its own
opinion
merely
because
another
view
is
possible-trial court had applied the correct legal
principles
and
exercised
its
discretion
judiciously-High Court refused to interfere.
[Paras 21-23] (E-14)

Revision dismissed - Summoning order upheld
- Interim order vacated.

Case Law Cited

Michael Machado & Anr. v. Central Bureau
of Investigation & Anr., AIR 2000 SC 1127
- referred to; Hardeep Singh v. State of
Punjab & Ors., (2014) 3 SCC 92 - applied;
Brijendra
Singh
&
Ors.
v. State
of
Rajasthan, (2017) 7 SCC 706 - followed;
Sunil Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P.,
Criminal Appeal No. 395 of 2019, decided
on 27.02.2019 - referred to.

List of Acts / Statutes
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Indian
Penal
Code,
1860;
Criminal
Law
Amendment Act, 1932.

List of Keywords
Criminal
revision;
Summoning
under
Section 319 Cr.P.C.; Persons not chargesheeted; Degree of satisfaction; Strong
and
cogent
evidence;
Discretionary
power; Revisional jurisdiction; Limited
interference; Prima facie case; Standard
of proof.

Case Arising From
Criminal Revision under Sections 397/401 Cr.P.C.
challenging order dated 23 October 2024 passed
by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 1,
Sultanpur, in Sessions Trial No. 210 of 2022
(State v. Iqbal Hussain & Others), whereby the
revisionists were summoned under Section 319
Cr.P.C. to face trial in Case Crime No. 305 of
2020
under
Sections
302/149,
307/149,
323/149, 504, 506 IPC and Section 7 of the
Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1932.

Appearance for Parties
For the Revisionists : Shri Arun Sinha, Shri
Ram
Chandra
Singh,
Shri
UmangAgarwal
For
the
Opposite
Parties
:
Learned
Government Advocate, Shri Manik Mishra, Shri
Ramakar Shukla

(Delivered by Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,
J.)

1. Heard Sri Arun Sinha, the learned
counsel for the applicants, Sri Satyendra
Srivastava, the learned A.G.A. for the
State, Sri Adarsh Srivastava, the learned
counsel for opposite party No.2 and
perused the record.

2. By means of the instant Revision
filed under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C., the
revisionists have challenged the validity of
1016 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
an order dated 23.10.2024 passed by the
learned Additional Session Judge, Court
No.1, Sultanpur in Session Trial No.210 of
2022 whereby an application filed by the
opposite party No.2 under Section 319
Cr.P.C. summoning the revisionists and
another person Ritesh Rana to face trial in
respect of Case Crime No.305 of 2020
under Section 302/149, 307/149, 323/149,
504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 7 of Criminal
Law Amendment Act relating to Police
Station- Kudwar, District- Sultanpur, has
been allowed and the applicants have been
summoned to face the trial.

3. The aforesaid case was instituted on
the basis of an FIR lodged by the opposite
party No.2 on 17.06.2020 against ten
persons, including the revisionists, stating
that the informant's daughter-in-law was
the village Pradhan and all her works were
looked
after
by
her
husband
(the
informant's
son
Mainuddin)
as
her
representative. Accused persons- Iqbal @
Balu, Akhlakh Ahmad, Shakeel Ahmad,
Ritesh Rana, Rohit Tewari, Gulam Asgari,
Hashim, Khursheed Alam and Zakir used
to sit at the electronics shop of Bilal
Ahmad and they used to keep on making
strategies for spreading their clout in the
village and they were jealous about the
works being done in Gram Sabha by the
complainant's son. When the complainant's
son Mainuddin reached the Jan Seva Shop
of
the
complainant's
younger
son-
Nuruddin at about 08:30 on 17.06.2020, all
the accused persons attacked him. Iqbal,
Gulam Asgari and Khursheed Alam had
fired
gun-shots
at
him.
When
the
complainant's other son- Mainuddin ran to
save his brother, he was also shot at and
thereafter all the accused persons beaten
them up with sticks. Both the injured
persons were taken to the District Hospital,
Sultanpur where Mainuddin died and
Nuruddin was referred to Medical College,
Lucknow.

4. In the statement of the complainant-
Mohd.
Ramzan
recorded
by
the
Investigating Officer, he reiterated the FIR
version.

5. In the statement of the injured
Nuruddin recorded by the Investigating
Officer, he did not mention the name of the
revisionists. The revisionists were not
named
in
the
statements
of
some
shopkeepers, who are mentioned as eyewitnesses of the incident.

6.
After
investigation,
the
Investigation
Officer
found
that
the
allegations against the applicants and
Ritesh Rana could not be established.

7. In the additional statement of the
injured
Nuruddin
recorded
by
the
Investigating Officer, he stated that the
applicants and Ritesh Rana were not
involved in the incident. His father had
lodged the FIR but he was not present at
the time of the incident. In the additional
statement of the informant also, he stated
that the revisionists and Ritesh Rana were
not
involved
in
the
incident.
After
completing
the
investigation,
the
Investigating Officer submitted a chargesheet dated 10.09.2020 against Iqbal
Hussain @ Balu, Gulam Asgari, Khursheed
Alam (sons of Zakir Hussain @ Zakku) and
Zakir Hussain @ Zakku and the implication
of Hashim, Bilal Ahmad, Akhlakh Ahmad,
Shakeel Ahmad, Rohit Tewari and Ritesh
Rana was found to be false.

8. The trial Court took congizance of
the offence and summoned the accused
persons against whom the charge-sheet has
been filed.
7 All. Bilal Ahmad & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1017

9. After examination of PW-1 (the
complainant) and PW-2 (the injured
Nuruddin), the complainant- opposite party
No.2 filed an application under Section 319
Cr.P.C. stating that PW-1 and PW-2 have
stated before the Court that all the accused
persons had fired at Mainuddin and
Nuruddin with the intention of killing them,
due
to
which
Mainuddin
died
and
Nurruddin suffered a gun-shot injury in his
neck. Involvement of the revisionists and
Ritesh Rana in commission of the offence
is established and the case of their trial is
made out from the aforesaid evidence
produced in the trial.

10. The application was opposed on
behalf of the revisionists and Akhlakh
Ahmad (the revisionist No.2), Shakeel
Ahmad, Rohit Tewari and Ritesh Rana
claimed alibi.

11. This application has been allowed
by the trial Court by means of an impugned
order dated 23.10.2024. The trial Court has
stated in the impugned order that the
complainant has stated about involvement
of the revisionists in commission of the
offence in the FIR and in his statement
recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. He has
stated about the involvement of the
revisionists and Ritesh Rana during his
examination before the trial Court. PW-2,
who got injured in the incident and who is
brother of the deceased, has also stated
before the Court about involvement of all
the persons named as accused in the FIR,
including the revisionists and Ritesh Rana,
in commission of the offence. From the
evidence available on record, involvement
of the revisionists and Ritesh Rana in
commission of the offence is established
prima facie and a case for summoning them
to face the trial is made out.

12. The trial Court has referred to the
judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of Michael Machado & Anr. v.
Central Bureau Of Investigation & Anr.:
AIR 2000 SC 1127, Hardeep Singh v.
State of Punjab & Ors.: (2014) 3 SCC 92
and Sunil Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P.
Crl. Appeal No.395 of 2019 decided on
27.02.2019.

13. Assailing validity of the aforesaid
order, Shri Arun Sinha, the learned counsel
for the revisionists has submitted that there
was ample evidence collected during
investigation to establish that the applicants
were not involved in commission of the
offence and, therefore, the Investigating
Officer had rightly exonerated them.
Although the complainant had stated about
the involvement of the revisionists in
commission of the offence in the FIR and
in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C.
and he has again reiterated the same during
his examination before the trial Court, the
injured Nuruddin had stated during his
statement recorded under Section 161
Cr.P.C. that his father was not present at
the time of the incident and Nuruddin had
stated before the Investigating Officer that
the revisionists and Ritesh Rana were not
involved in commission of the offence.
Therefore, the statement of PW-1 that the
revisionists were involved in commission
of the offence, when his injured son has
stated that PW-1 was not present at the
time of incident, is not sufficient to
summon the applicants to face the trial. So
far as the PW-2 is concerned, he had
himself stated earlier that the revisionists
were not involved in commission of the
offence and, therefore, the revisionists
cannot be summoned to face the trial under
Section 319 Cr.P.C. on the basis of
statement of PW-2.
1018 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

14. Section 319 Cr.P.C. provides as
follows:-

"319. Power to proceed against
other persons appearing to be guilty of
offence.

(1) Where, in the course of any
inquiry into, or trial of, an offence, it
appears from the evidence that any person
not being the accused has committed any
offence for which such person could be
tried together with the accused, the Court
may proceed against such person for the
offence
which
he
appears
to
have
committed.

(2) Where such person is not
attending the Court, he may be arrested or
summoned, as the circumstances of the
case
may
require,
for
the
purpose
aforesaid.

(3) Any person attending the
Court, although not under arrest or upon a
summons, may be detained by such Court
for the purpose of the inquiry into, or trial
of, the offence which he appears to have
committed.

(4) Where the Court proceeds
against any person under sub-section (1),
then-

(a) the proceedings in respect of
such person shall be commenced afresh,
and the witnesses re-heard;

(b) subject to the provisions of
clause (a), the case may proceed as if such
person had been an accused person when
the Court took cognizance of the offence
upon which the inquiry or trial was
commenced."

15. Sri Arun Sinha has relied upon the
judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the cases of Hardeep Singh (supra) and
Brijendra Singh & Ors. v. State of
Rajasthan: (2017) 7 SCC 706.

16. In Hardeep Singh (supra), the
Hon'ble Supreme Court held that:-

"105. Power under Section 319
Cr.P.C. is a discretionary and an extra-
ordinary power. It is to be exercised
sparingly and only in those cases where the
circumstances of the case so warrant. It is
not to be exercised because the Magistrate
or the Sessions Judge is of the opinion that
some other person may also be guilty of
committing that offence. Only where strong
and cogent evidence occurs against a
person from the evidence led before the
court that such power should be exercised
and not in a casual and cavalier manner.

106. Thus, we hold that though
only a prima facie case is to be established
from the evidence led before the court not
necessarily tested on the anvil of CrossExamination, it requires much stronger
evidence than mere probability of his
complicity. The test that has to be applied
is one which is more than prima facie case
as exercised at the time of framing of
charge, but short of satisfaction to an
extent
that
the
evidence,
if
goes
unrebutted, would lead to conviction. In
the absence of such satisfaction, the court
should refrain from exercising power under
Section 319 Cr.P.C. In Section 319
Cr.P.C. the purpose of providing if 'it
appears from the evidence that any person
not being the accused has committed any
offence' is clear from the words "for
which such person could be tried together
with the accused." The words used are not
'for
which
such
person
could
be
convicted'. There is, therefore, no scope
for the Court acting under Section 319
7 All. Bilal Ahmad & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1019
Cr.P.C. to form any opinion as to the guilt
of the accused.

.....

111. Even the Constitution Bench
in Dharam Pal (CB) has held that the
Sessions Court can also exercise its
original jurisdiction and summon a person
as an accused in case his name appears in
Column 2 of the chargesheet, once the case
had been committed to it. It means that a
person whose name does not appear even
in the FIR or in the chargesheet or whose
name appears in the FIR and not in the
main part of the chargesheet but in Column
2 and has not been summoned as an
accused in exercise of the powers under
Section 193 Cr.P.C. can still be summoned
by the court, provided the court is satisfied
that the conditions provided in the said
statutory provisions stand fulfilled."

17. In Brijendra Singh (supra), the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has followed the
decision in Hardeep Singh (supra) and
framed the moot questions involved in the
case that what is the degree of satisfaction
that is required for invoking the powers
under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and in what
situations this power should be exercised in
respect to a person named in the FIR but
not charge-sheeted.

18. While answering to the aforesaid
questions, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
referred to the following passage from the
judgment of Hardeep Singh (supra) and
the Hon'ble Supreme Court further held in
Brijendra Singh (supra) that :-

"In order to answer the question,
some of the principles enunciated in
Hardeep
Singh's
case
may
be
recapitulated: Power under Section 319
Cr.P.C. can be exercised by the trial court
at any stage during the trial, i.e., before the
conclusion of trial, to summon any person
as an accused and face the trial in the
ongoing case, once the trial court finds that
there is some 'evidence' against such a
person on the basis of which evidence it
can be gathered that he appears to be
guilty of offence. The 'evidence' herein
means the material that is brought before
the Court during trial. Insofar as the
material/evidence collected by the IO at the
stage of inquiry is concerned, it can be
utilised for corroboration and to support
the evidence recorded by the Court to
invoke the power under Section 319
Cr.P.C. No doubt, such evidence that has
surfaced in examination-in-chief, without
cross- examination of witnesses, can also
be taken into consideration. However, since
it is a discretionary power given to the
Court under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and is
also an extraordinary one, same has to be
exercised sparingly and only in those cases
where the circumstances of the case so
warrants. The degree of satisfaction is
more than the degree which is warranted at
the time of framing of the charges against
others in respect of whom chargesheet was
filed. Only where strong and cogent
evidence occurs against a person from the
evidence led before the Court that such
power should be exercised. It is not to be
exercised in a casual or a cavalier manner.
The prima facie opinion which is to be
formed requires stronger evidence than
mere probability of his complicity. "

19.
What
comes
out
from
the
judgments in the case of Hardeep Singh
(supra) and Brijendra Singh (supra) relied
upon by the learned counsel for the
revisionists is that the trial Court may
summon any person named in the FIR but
against whom the charge-sheet has not
1020 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
been filed by the Investigating Officer, if
some evidence comes against such persons
from which he appears to be guilty of the
offence. The evidence refers to material
placed before the trial Court as prosecution
evidence and not the material collected by
the Investigating Officer. The material
collected by the Investigating Officer
during investigation can be utilized for
corroboration and to support the evidence
recorded by the trial Court to invoke the
powers under Section 319 Cr.P.C. but at
this stage it cannot be used to contradict or
disbelieve the evidence produced before the
trial Court. If the evidence produced before
the trial Court makes out more than a prima
facie case for trial of the accused persons,
that is sufficient for summoning the
accused persons to face trial under Section
319 Cr.P.C. and it is not required that
before summoning the accused person
under Section 319 Cr.P.C., the Court
should be satisfied that the evidence is such
as would lead to conviction of the accused
persons. At the stage of summoning an
accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C., the trial
court is not required to form any opinion as
to guilt of the accused person.

20. In the present case, the statements
of PW-1 and PW-2 recorded by the trial
Court clearly make out a case for trial of
the revisionists and Ritesh Rana and it is
not necessary that the evidence of PW-1
and PW-2 ought to have been scrutinized
by the trial Court to such an extent as to
record a satisfaction that it was sufficient
for conviction of the revisionists and Ritesh
Rana.

21. Section 319 Cr.P.C. confers a
discretionary powers upon the trial Court
and the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
cautioned that the discretion has to be
exercised only where more than a mere
prima facie case is made out against the
persons and this discretion should not be
exercised in a casual or cavalier manner. A
perusal of the impugned order passed by
the trial court indicates that the trial Court
has examined the material on record, the
statements of PW-1 and PW-2 recorded by
the trial Court, statements recorded by the
Investigating Officer and after analysis of
all the relevant material, the trial Court has
allowed the application under Section 319
Cr.P.C. on the basis of cogent reasons
recorded in the order. Therefore, it cannot
be said that the trial court has exercised its
discretion in a casual and cavalier manner,
without examining the relevant material
and without recording a satisfaction that a
case for trial of the revisionists and Ritesh
Rana is made out.

22. While examining the validity of an
order passed by the trial Court exercising
its discretion, the scope of scrutiny by the
revisional Court under Section 397/401
Cr.P.C. is limited to examining whether the
discretion has been exercised in accordance
with law or not. If the discretion has been
exercised in accordance with law, after
taking into consideration all the relevant
aspects of the matter and after recording the
cogent
reasons
for
exercising
the
discretion, this court will not interfere with
the order in exercise of its discretionary
jurisdiction merely because another view
may also be possible and the trial court
could
have
exercised
the
discretion
otherwise also.

23.
In
view
of
the
foregoing
discussion, I find no error or illegality in
the impugned order passed 23.10.2024
passed by the learned Additional Session
Judge, Court No.1, Sultanpur in Session
Trial No.210 of 2022. There is no good
ground to interfere in the order in exercise
of revisional jurisdiction of this Court.
7 All. Juvenile 'X' Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1021

24. The revision lacks merits and the
same is dismissed.

25. Interim order dated 03.12.2024
stands discharged.
----------
(2025) 7 ILRA 1021
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 24.07.2025
BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SIDDHARTH, J.

Criminal Revision No. 4833 of 2024

Juvenile 'X' ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sri Ajai Kumar Srivastava, Sri Govind
Prasad Pal, Sri Pradeep Kumar Pal

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

Issue for Consideration
Whether a child above sixteen years of
age, alleged to have committed a heinous
offence, can be directed to face trial as an
adult under Section 15 of the Juvenile
Justice (Care and Protection of Children)
Act, 2015, in disregard of a psychologist's
report
indicating
mild
intellectual
disability and poor social functioning; and
whether such opinion is binding upon the
Juvenile Justice Board.

Headnotes
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of
Children) Act, 2015 - ss.15, 18(3), 19 -
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of
Children) Model Rules, 2016 - r.10A -
Preliminary
assessment
-
Heinous
offence - Juvenile aged between 16-18
years - Expert assessment - Board's
discretion - Requirement of independent
satisfaction - Procedural safeguard -
Social media influence- Reformative
intent - Trial as adult - Scope of judicial
review.

Held:

Preliminary assessment under s.15 of the 2015
Act-crucial judicial function determining whether
a child above sixteen years should be tried as an
adult for a heinous offence-Such assessment
must be based upon an evaluation of the-(i)
mental and physical capacity to commit the
offence-(ii)
ability
to
understand
its
consequences-(iii)
circumstances
of
its
commission. [Paras 13-15]

Juvenile Justice Board may seek assistance from
psychologists or experts under s.15(1) r/w r.10A
of the 2016 Rules-expert's opinion is advisory
and not binding-the Board's disagreement
with such opinion must be reasoned and based
on an independent evaluation of evidence.
[Paras 14, 18, 21-22]

Words "may take assistance" in s.15(1) must be
construed as mandatory in practice- assessment
determines whether the child is to be subjected
to an adult trial- omission to meaningfully
consider expert opinion vitiates the process -
contrary to the legislative safeguards protecting
children in conflict with law. [Paras 17, 20]

Act of 2015-reformative and child-centricenvisages rehabilitation-not retribution- Board
cannot, on the basis of the seriousness of the
offence alone- treat every adolescent as an
adult criminal. [Paras 31-33]

Revision allowed - Orders treating juvenile as
adult set aside - Matter remanded to the
Juvenile Justice Board for trial as a juvenile
under the 2015 Act (E-14)

Case Law Cited

Minor X v. State of U.P. and Another,
Criminal Revision No. 656 of 2022 (All HC)
- distinguished; Mumtaz Ahmed Nasir
Khan v. State of Maharashtra, 2019 (4)
Bom CR (Cri) 261 - relied on.

List of Acts / Statutes