# Hansraj Yadav Revisionist v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2021) 8 ILRA 553
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-08-19
- **Case number:** Criminal Revision No. 864 of 2020
- **Bench:** J.J. Munir
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/hansraj-yadav-revisionist-v-state-of-u-p-47273
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

(A) Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code,
1860 - Sections 489B, 489C - Revision -
The
Juvenile
Justice
(Care
and
Protection of Children) Act, 2015 -
Section 12,101 - exceptions to the rule
of bail for a juvenile - apprehension
about the juvenile coming into contact
with known criminals - Postulates an
amalgam
of
the
many
undesirable
consequences that would ensue in case
the juvenile, in a given situation were
released on bail - include an offence of
grave enormity, where release of the
juvenile on bail might have adverse
impact on the society.(Para -12)

Revisionist apprehended in connection with
crime - joint operation by Anti Terrorism
Squad and the Station House Officer -
carrying blue-coloured bag - search of the
bag - led to recovery of fake Indian currency -
First
Information
Report
-
revisionist
confessed - Revisionist moved the Board -
Board declared juvenile - moved Board
seeking bail - bail rejected - appeal before
the Sessions Judge - dismiss the same and
affirmed the Board - Aggrieved, this Revision
has been instituted.(Para - 1,2,3,4)

HELD:-Social Investigation Report, shows
that revisionist is a dropout from school and
has discontinued his studies after Class VIII.
No evidence or material indicating the
revisionist's gainful or productive employment
in life so far. His siblings appear to be better
educated, but the typical circumstances in
which the revisionist is placed could make him
a possible victim of known criminals to hire at
the dawn of youth. In these circumstances, if
the revisionist were enlarged on bail, the
possibility that he would come into contact or
resume contact with known criminals cannot
be ruled out. No inference with the orders
made by the Courts below is required.(Para -
11,13,14)

Criminal Revision dismissed. (E-6)

## Text

8 All. Hansraj Yadav Vs. State of U.P.
553
misunderstood and mechanically applied.
Though, the powers of an appellate court,
while dealing with an appeal against
acquittal and an appeal against conviction
are equally wide but the considerations
which weigh with it while dealing with an
appeal against an order of acquittal and in
an appeal against conviction are distinct
and
separate.
The
presumption
of
innocence of an accused which gets
strengthened on his acquittal is not
available on his conviction. An appellate
court may give every reasonable weight to
the conclusions arrived at by the trial court
but it must be remembered that an appellate
court is duty-bound, in the same way as the
trial court, to test the evidence extrinsically
as well as intrinsically and to consider as
thoroughly as the trial court, all the
circumstances available on the record so as
to arrive at an independent finding
regarding guilt or innocence of the convict.
An appellate court fails in the discharge of
one of its essential duties, if it fails to itself
appreciate the evidence on the record and
arrive at an independent finding based on
the appraisal of such evidence........"

7. In the opinion of this Court, the
Appellate Court has gone utterly wrong about
the standard, by which it had to judge the
revisionists' appeal. The impugned judgment
cannot, therefore, be sustained. However,
since the Appellate Court has not yet
discharged its sacrosanct duties of doing a
complete
independent
re-appraisal
of
evidence, it is not for this Court to put a
terminus to the proceedings. The case must
go back to the Appellate Court for
determination of the appeal afresh, after
setting aside the impugned judgment. It must
also be noticed that pending appeal, the
revisionists were on bail and were taken into
custody when their appeal was dismissed.
They were not admitted to bail by this Court,
pending revision and are in jail. They are
entitled to remain on bail, pending a rehearing of their appeal, upon furnishing such
bail bonds and sureties as the Appellate Court
may direct, and which the Appellate Court
shall do forthwith.

8. In the result, this revision succeeds
and is allowed in part. The impugned
judgment and order dated 13.01.2020 passed
by the learned IVth Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Kasganj in Criminal Appeal
no.12 of 2018 is hereby set aside. The appeal
shall stand restored to the file of the
Appellate Court with a direction to re-hear
and determine the appeal within six months
next, in accordance with law. Pending appeal,
the revisionists shall be released on bail
forthwith on furnishing such bail bonds and
sureties as the Appellate Court may direct.

9. Let a copy of this judgment be
certified to the Appellate Court by the office
and also communicated by the Registrar
(Compliance).

10. Let the lower court records be sent
down at once.
----------
(2021)08ILR A553
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.08.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.

Criminal Revision No. 864 of 2020

Hansraj Yadav ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sri Neeraj Kumar Srivastava, Sri Pankaj
Kumar
554 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Counsel for the Opposite Party:
A.G.A.

(A) Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code,
1860 - Sections 489B, 489C - Revision -
The
Juvenile
Justice
(Care
and
Protection of Children) Act, 2015 -
Section 12,101 - exceptions to the rule
of bail for a juvenile - apprehension
about the juvenile coming into contact
with known criminals - Postulates an
amalgam
of
the
many
undesirable
consequences that would ensue in case
the juvenile, in a given situation were
released on bail - include an offence of
grave enormity, where release of the
juvenile on bail might have adverse
impact on the society.(Para -12)

Revisionist apprehended in connection with
crime - joint operation by Anti Terrorism
Squad and the Station House Officer -
carrying blue-coloured bag - search of the
bag - led to recovery of fake Indian currency -
First
Information
Report
-
revisionist
confessed - Revisionist moved the Board -
Board declared juvenile - moved Board
seeking bail - bail rejected - appeal before
the Sessions Judge - dismiss the same and
affirmed the Board - Aggrieved, this Revision
has been instituted.(Para - 1,2,3,4)

HELD:-Social Investigation Report, shows
that revisionist is a dropout from school and
has discontinued his studies after Class VIII.
No evidence or material indicating the
revisionist's gainful or productive employment
in life so far. His siblings appear to be better
educated, but the typical circumstances in
which the revisionist is placed could make him
a possible victim of known criminals to hire at
the dawn of youth. In these circumstances, if
the revisionist were enlarged on bail, the
possibility that he would come into contact or
resume contact with known criminals cannot
be ruled out. No inference with the orders
made by the Courts below is required.(Para -
11,13,14)

Criminal Revision dismissed. (E-6)

(Delivered by Hon'ble J.J. Munir, J.)

This Revision is directed against an
order of Mr. Gaurav Kumar Srivastava, the
then Additional District and Sessions
Judge, Chandauli dated 05.02.2020, passed
in Criminal Appeal No. 5 of 2020,
dismissing the appeal and affirming an
order of the Juvenile Justice Board,
Chandauli1 dated 21.01.2020, refusing bail
pending trial to the revisionist in Case
Crime No. 222 of 2018, under Sections
489B, 489C of the Indian Penal Code,
18602, Police Station - Chakia, District -
Chandauli.

2. The revisionist was apprehended in
connection with the aforesaid crime in a
joint operation by the Anti Terrorism
Squad and the Station House Officer,
Police Station Chakia, District Chandauli,
on 17.10.2018 at 03:00 p.m. in the
afternoon, while he was proceeding on
board a three-wheeler. He was apprehended
at the Saidullahpur Trijunction, by the joint
police party, acting on a tip off from an
informer. He was carrying a blue-coloured
bag. The search of the bag, going by prior
information, led to recovery of fake Indian
currency worth Rs. 3,40,000/-. The First
Information
Report3
details
that
the
revisionist confessed that he had collected
the currency from Farakka, Bihar, travel
led to Patna, and thence to Mugalsarai.

3. The revisionist moved the Board
for a declaration that he was a child in
conflict with law. The Board, after
necessary inquiry, declared the revisionist a
juvenile vide order dated 14.01.2020, aged
about 15 years, one month and eighteen
days on the date of occurrence. The
revisionist then moved the Board seeking
bail. The Board rejected the bail plea vide
order dated 21.01.2020. The revisionist
appealed the Board's order to the learned
Sessions Judge, Chandauli under Section
8 All. Hansraj Yadav Vs. State of U.P.
555
101 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and
Protection of Children) Act, 20154. The
appeal before the Sessions Judge was
numbered as Criminal Appeal No. 5 of
2020. It came up for determination before
the learned Sessions Judge, Chandauli, who
proceeded to dismiss the same and affirmed
the Board.

4. Aggrieved, this Revision has been
instituted.

5.

Heard
Mr.
Neeraj
Kumar
Srivastava,
learned
Counsel
for
the
revisionist and Mr. Shashi Shekhar Tiwari,
learned Additional Government Advocate
for the State of Uttar Pradesh.

6. During the course of hearing, it was
strenuously argued by Mr. Srivastava that
the juvenile was made a scapegoat. He was
apprehended while he was travelling on
board train at the Mugalsarai Junction by
the Police and was challaned in connection
with the present crime. There appeared to
be
something
intriguing
about
the
revisionist's apprehension that was spelt out
by the fact that the FIR was registered with
a delay of five hours. There was no reason
for the FIR to be delayed by five hours in a
matter where the first informant was the
Station House Officer of the Police Station
where report was registered. There is
seemingly no explanation for this delay. It
is on this account that the revisionist was
summoned by the Court. He stated before
the Court that he was passing through
Mugalsarai Junction on board a train, being
a runaway from home. He had left home
after being thrashed by his father. Mr.
Srivastava insists that it is a case of patent
false implication, where someone caught
with fake currency has been allowed to go
scot-free and instead, the revisionist, an
innocent boy, has been framed by the
Police.

7. Mr. Tiwari, the learned A.G.A., on
the other hand, has stoutly opposed the bail
plea. He submits that the revisionist has
been apprehended carrying the currency,
and there is no reason why the revisionist
would be chosen as a target for false
implication. Even otherwise, he submits
that there is no reason to frame an innocent
person in a case of recovery of fake
currency.

8. This Court has perused the
impugned orders, the material available on
record and considered the submissions
advanced by learned Counsel on both sides.

9. Generally speaking, the revisionist,
being a child in conflict with law, who has
been found by the Board to be aged 15
years and one month, the universal rule of
bail postulated under Section 12 of the Act
of 2015 would come to his infallible aid,
unless the case fell in one or the other
exceptions to the rule postulated under the
proviso to Section 12 (1) of the Act.
Section 12 (1) reads :

12. Bail to a person who is
apparently a child alleged to be in
conflict with law.-

(1) When any person, who is
apparently a child and is alleged to have
committed a bailable or non-bailable
offence, is apprehended or detained by the
police or appears or brought before a
Board, such person shall, notwithstanding
anything contained in the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or in any other
law for the time being in force, shall be
released on bail with or without surety or
556 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
placed under the supervision of a probation
officer or under the care of any fit person :

Provided that such person shall
not be so released if there appears
reasonable grounds for believing that the
release is likely to bring that person into
association with any known criminal or
expose the said person to moral, physical or
psychological danger or the person's release
would defeat the ends of justice, and the
Board shall record the reasons for denying
the bail and circumstances that led to such
a decision.

10. It has to be borne in mind that
there is substantial recovery of fake
currency from the revisionist's possession,
which has to be believed at this stage. An
offence relating to fake currency, where the
revisionist has been challaned under
Sections 489B and 489C of the Penal Code,
is a very serious offence, affecting the
country's economy and national security. It
could be a very small tentacle of a hydraheaded monster, involving infiltration of
the country's economy with fake currency.
Offences relating to currency and coinage
have always been regarded to be so serious
that these are made punishable at the stage
of preparation. In the current scenario, they
have
assumed
alarming
dimensions,
because these could be connected to further
more dreadful crimes of terrorism etc. This
Court does not wish to suggest that the
revisionist is indeed involved in some
heinous offence or even the present crime.
Whatever is said here is limited to judge
the bail plea. These remarks have been
made in the context that the crime of which
the revisionist is accused, is far too serious
to be passed off for another heinous
offence. At the same time, the law relating
to bails governing children in conflict with
law does envisage bail as a rule.

11. It is strenuously urged on behalf
of the revisionist that howsoever serious
the gravity of the offence, it is quite
irrelevant to judge a juvenile's bail plea.
This Court does not think so. The reason is
that one of the exceptions to the universal
rule of bail for juveniles is the case where
grant of bail would lead to ends of justice
being defeated. Now, ends of justice being
defeated is not a word of art. It postulates
an amalgam of the many undesirable
consequences that would ensue in case the
juvenile, in a given situation were released
on bail. It would also include an offence of
grave enormity, where release of the
juvenile on bail might have adverse impact
on the society.

12. There are other exceptions to the
rule of bail for a juvenile. One of them is
apprehension about the juvenile coming
into contact with known criminals. Here,
the juvenile being charged with carrying
counterfeit currency, it is but logical to
assume at this stage that he is in contact
with some known criminals. At his age, it
is, by no means, possible to infer that he
would have printed the currency himself or
be the kingpin of a racket involving fake
currency. There is every likelihood that he
is part of a gang or in contact with some
known criminals, who have employed him
as a carrier. The fact that he has no criminal
history would make him an ideal choice for
a hardened criminal, involved in a racket of
fake currency.

13. There is one more feature which
must not escape mention. The Social
Investigation Report, amongst other things,
shows that the revisionist is a dropout from
school and has discontinued his studies
after Class VIII. There is no evidence or
material indicating the revisionist's gainful
or productive employment in life so far.
8 All. S.P. Mathur Vs. Sri R.P. Sharma & Anr.
557
Though his siblings appear to be better
educated, but the typical circumstances in
which the revisionist is placed could
make him a possible victim of known
criminals to hire at the dawn of youth. In
these circumstances, if the revisionist
were enlarged on bail, the possibility that
he would come into contact or resume
contact with known criminals cannot be
ruled out.

14. Considering the entirety of
circumstances, this Court is of opinion
that no inference with the orders made by
the Courts below is required.

15. In the result, this Revision fails
and stands dismissed.
----------
(2021)08ILR A557
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 30.07.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE NEERAJ TIWARI, J.

Criminal Revision No. 916 of 1988

S.P. Mathur ...Revisionist
Versus
Sri R.P. Sharma & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sri R.P. Sharma, Sri Harish Chandra Mishra,
Sri S.G. Vinod Sinha, Sri Samit Gopal, Sri
V.Saran, Sri Vinod Sinha, Sri Virendra
Saran,
Sri
G.S.
Chaturvedi,
Sri
V.P.
Srivastava

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
A.G.A.

(A) Criminal Law - The Code of criminal
procedure, 1973 - Section 245 (2) -
Revision
-
Prevention
of
Food
Adulteration Act,1954 - Section 7/16,
17, 17(1) (a) and (b), 17(2) - for
maintaining the Complaint under Section
7/16 of the Act, 1954, "Company" is
necessary party and no Complaint is
maintainable until "Company" is made
party - pure question of law or legal
issue based on undisputed or proven
facts can be raised at any stage even
before the Court of last resort.(Para -
23,28)

Complaint was filed against the revisionist -
Company is manufacturer of rath vanaspati -
revisionist was accused in the capacity of
sales manager D.C.M. Chemicals Firm - "
Company" is not arrayed as accused - order
passed for framing charges against revisionist
- revisionist filed discharge application -
ground - provision of section 17 of the Act
1954 has not been complied with - as
company was not made the accused -
discharge application rejected by the court
below - hence the present revision .

HELD:- Non compliance of Section 17(1)(b)
of the Act, 1954 is pure legal issue going to
the root of the case based on undisputed and
proven facts and can be raised at any stage
of legal proceeding. In light of Section
17(1)(b) of the Act, 1954, "Company" is
necessary party and no Complaint under
Section 7/16 of the Act, 1954 can be
maintained or order can be passed against
the
revisionist
without
impleading
the
"Company" as accused. Therefore, Complaint
dated 22.08.1984 filed under Section 7/16 of
the Act, 1954 as well as impugned order
dated 16.05.1988 is not sustainable. (Para -
28,31)

Discharge
application
&
Criminal
Revision allowed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:-

1. B.K. Varma Vs Corp. of Madras, 1971 CRI.
L.J. 60 (Vol. 77 C. N.15)

2. N.N. Mukerjee & ors. Vs The St. of U.P. &
anr., Criminal Reference No. 645 of 1974

3. The St. Vs R. P. Mehta, 1982 CRI. L. J. NOC
159 (ALL.)