# Irfan alias Saddam Revisionist v. State of U.P. and another

- **Citation:** (2011) 2 ILRA 891
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2011-08-03
- **Case number:** Criminal Revision No. 300 of 2011
- **Bench:** S.S. Chauhan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/irfan-alias-saddam-revisionist-v-state-of-u-p-and-another-41996
- **Pages:** 4

## Text

2 All] Irfan alias Saddam V. State of U.P. and others

891
possession of the bungalow because of
inaction on the part of the said district
authorities.

21. For the use and occupation of
the premises unauthorizedly for the period
between 01.07.1999 to 30.08.2011, Sri
S.C. Shukla is further directed to pay a
sum of Rs. 5,000/- (Five Thousand) per
month through a bank draft drawn in the
name of Official Liquidator of this Court
by 31.09.2011, failing which the District
Magistrate shall ensure recovery of the
said damages as arrears of land revenue.
The aforesaid exercise must be completed
within two months from today.

22. Sri S.C. Shukla is further called
upon to show cause as to why contempt
proceedings/proceedings under Section
195 read with Section 340 Cr.P.C. be not
initiated against him for concealing
material facts in the application filed
before this Court.

23. For the purpose three weeks'
time is prayed for by Sri Manoj Mishra,
Advocate.

24. Let matter be listed for the
purpose again on 26th September, 2011.

25. A copy of this order be issued to
the Chief Standing Counsel free of cost
for being forwarded to the District
Magistrate and Senior Superintendent of
Police, Kanpur Nagar for necessary
compliance.
---------

REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 03.08.2011

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE S.S. CHAUHAN, J.

Criminal Revision No. 300 of 2011

Irfan alias Saddam
 ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. and another

 ...Opposite Parties

Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection Act
of children) Act 2000-Section 52-Appeal
against the order passed by Juvenile
Justice Board-dismissed by the session
Judge as not maintainable by placing
reliance upon Jabar Singh case-heldmisconceived-much difference in fact of
Jabar
Singh
case-appeal
against
the
decision of Board-held maintainable.

Held: Para 8

While mentioning about the word 'finding
of the court', the Apex Court virtually
meant the finding of the trial court and in
reference
to
trial
court's
order
that
observation was made that appeal was not
maintainable and it was only that revision
was
maintainable
as
appeal
was
maintainable against the order of the
competent authority. The finding recorded
by the learned Sessions judge, therefore, is
beside the point and beside the case law
which has been mentioned and has been
relied upon by him. There is much
difference in the facts of both the cases
and the appeal is certainly maintainable in
view of the provisions contained in Section
52 of the Act when an order is passed by
the competent authority.
Case law discussed:
2010 (1) L.Cr.R. (SC) page 353

(Delivered by Hon'ble S.S. Chauhan, J. )

1. Heard learned counsel for the
revisionist and learned AGA.
892 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2011

2. Through this revision, the
revisionist has challenged the order
passed by the learned Sessions Judge
dated 29.6.2011, inter alia, on the ground
that the learned Sessions Judge has
misdirected himself in dismissing the
appeal of the revisionist on technical
ground that revision is maintainable.

3. The facts in brief are that in
reference to an incident which took place
on 25.3.2010 at about 7:30 A.M., an FIR
was lodged on the same day at 8:15 A.M.
by complainant Mohd. Riyaz Khan
against Naim Ullah, Imran alias Immi and
the present accused revisionist. The
revisionist was produced before the
Magistrate,
Juvenile
Justice
Board,
Sultanpur as he pleaded minority in
respect of himself. The evidence was
adduced before the learned Magistrate
and after conclusion of the evidence,
learned Magistrate proceeded to hold that
the revisionist was about 22 years of age
at the time of occurrence. Aggrieved with
the said order, revisionist preferred a
criminal appeal in the court of learned
Sessions Judge under Section 52 of the
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of
Children) Act, 2000 (for short "the Act").
The appeal was filed before the learned
Sessions Judge on 3.6.2011 and was heard
on 29.6.2011. The parties appeared before
the learned Sessions Judge and put
forward their claim. Learned Sessions
Judge after appreciating the argument of
the parties, dismissed the appeal of the
revisionist on technical ground saying that
the appeal was not maintainable as against
the order passed by the Magistrate, it was
only revision, which was maintainable in
view of the law propounded by the Apex
Court in the case of Jabar Singh vs.
Dinesh Chandra, 2010 (1) L.Cr.R. (SC)
page 353.

4. Submission of learned counsel for
the revisionist is that Section 52 of the
Act clearly contemplates filing of an
appeal against any order of the Magistrate
and Section 53 of the Act contemplates
entertainment of revision by the High
Court. Thus, he submits that in view of
the clear provision contained in the Act,
learned Sessions Judge has misdirected
himself in referring a finding that the
revision was maintainable. It is also
submitted that Jabar Singh (supra) also
does
not
lay
down
the
aforesaid
proposition but in fact in the said case a
revision was filed against the trial court's
order before the High Court and the
accused was never presented before the
competent authority i.e. Juvenile Justice
Board and the aforesaid fact has been
dealt with in the said case. The Apex
Court observed in reference to the
proceedings initiated for determination of
juvenality before the trial court that
Section 49 of the Act thus contains no
provision
prohibiting
the
court
to
determine the claim of juvenality if raised
and in reference to Section 49 of the Act,
it was held by the Apex Court that a plain
reading of Section 52 of the Act shows
that no statutory appeal is available
against any finding of the trial court that a
person was not juvenile at the time of
commission of the offence. Learned
counsel submits that the said observation
has been made in reference to the trial
court's order but not in reference to the
proceedings before the Juvenile Justice
Board. Learned Sessions Judge has totally
misdirected himself in relying upon the
said decision and dismissing the appeal of
the revisionist.

5. Learned AGA has also agreed that
if an accused is presented before the
competent authority under Section 49 (1)
2 All] Irfan alias Saddam V. State of U.P. and others

893
of the Act, then it is the competent
authority,
who
will
determine
the
juvenality of that accused and against that
order an appeal under Section 52 of the
Act would be maintainable. Learned AGA
has also drawn the attention of the Court
towards Sections 52 and 53 of the Act and
the proposition of law laid down in the
case of Jabar Singh (supra) and has
submitted that when there is a specific
provision under the statute for filing an
appeal, the said provision cannot be bypassed and has to be adhered to.

6. I have heard learned counsel for
the parties and perused the record.

7. The revisionist moved an
application before the Juvenile Justice
Board claiming that he was minor. The
said application of the revisionist was
rejected and thereafter he filed an appeal.
During pendency of the appeal, the matter
was heard and relying upon Jabar Singh
(supra), it was held by the learned
Sessions Judge that appeal was not
maintainable. Learned Sessions Judge
totally misdirected himself and rather
misunderstood the said case law while
dealing with the issue in question. Section
52 of the Act provides as under:-

"52. Appeals.-- (1) Subject to the
provisions of this section, any person
aggrieved by an order made by a
competent authority under this Act may,
within thirty days from the date of such
order, prefer an appeal to the Court of
Session:

Provided that the Court of Session
may entertain the appeal after the expiry
of the said period of thirty days if it is
satisfied that the appellant was prevented
by sufficient cause from filing the appeal
in time.

(2) No appeal shall lie from--

(a) any order of acquittal made by
the Board in respect of a juvenile alleged
to have committed an offence; or

(b) any order made by a Committee
in respect of a finding that a person is not
a neglected juvenile.

(3) No second appeal shall lie from
any order of the Court of Session passed
in appeal under this section."

Revision under Section 53 of the Act
can be filed before the High Court, which
reads as under:-

"53. Revision.--The High Court
may, at any time, either of its own motion
or on an application received in this
behalf, call for the record of any
proceeding in which any competent
authority or Court of Session has passed
an order for the purpose of satisfying
itself as to the legality or propriety of any
such order and may pass such order in
relation thereto as it thinks fit:

Provided that the High Court shall
not pass an order under this section
prejudicial to any person without giving
him a reasonable opportunity of being
heard."

8. From reading both the sections, it
is crystal clear that when an application is
moved before the competent authority
under Section 49 of the Act for
determination of juvenality, then appeal
would be maintainable under Section 52
of the Act before the Sessions Judge. In
894 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2011

Jabar Singh (supra), the application was
moved before the trial court and not
before the competent authority and in that
reference in para-29 of the said report, it
has been said by the Apex Court that
Section 52 of the Act shows that no
statutory appeal is available against any
finding
of
the
trial
court.
While
mentioning about the word 'finding of the
court', the Apex Court virtually meant the
finding of the trial court and in reference
to trial court's order that observation was
made that appeal was not maintainable
and it was only that revision was
maintainable as appeal was maintainable
against the order of the competent
authority. The finding recorded by the
learned Sessions judge, therefore, is
beside the point and beside the case law
which has been mentioned and has been
relied upon by him. There is much
difference in the facts of both the cases
and the appeal is certainly maintainable in
view of the provisions contained in
Section 52 of the Act when an order is
passed by the competent authority.

9. In this view of the matter, the
revision is allowed and the order dated
29.6.2011 passed by the Sessions Judge,
Sultanpur is hereby set aside. The matter
is remitted to the Sessions Judge,
Sultanpur to decide the appeal of the
revisionist in accordance with law on
merit.
---------

APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 02.08.2011

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DEVI PRASAD SINGH,J.
THE HON'BLE DR. SATISH CHANDRA,J.

First Appeal From Order No. - 424 of 2002

National Insurance Company Ltd.

 ...Petitioner
Versus
Smt. Nand Rani and others 3

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri S.C.Gualti

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri N.C. Upadhyay

Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 Section 173Appeal against award of claim tribunalby insurance company-on ground the
driver at the time of accident not
possessing valid driving license-even on
possessing
insurance
policy-held-law
laid down by the larger bench of Apex
Court in Swaran Singh case-insurance
company to pay entire amount of awardwith liberty to recover the same from the
insurer.

Held: Para 14

In view of the above, the appeal is
allowed in part. The impugned award
dated 4.5.2002 is modified to the extent
that it shall be open to the appellant
Insurance
Company
to
recover
the
amount under award from the insured in
terms of the procedure provided by
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Swaran Singh (supra). It is further
provided that the appellant Insurance
Company shall deposit entire amount
before the Tribunal within two months
and the Tribunal shall release the same
within one month in favour of the
claimant respondents. Deposit made in