# Karesh Pal @ Billoo and Ors. (In Jail) v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2019) 1 ILRA 908
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2019
- **Bench:** Arun Tandon, Vipin Sinha
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/karesh-pal-billoo-and-ors-in-jail-v-state-of-u-p-43390
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

of Children) Act, 2000- sections 7A, 15-
and
Juvenile
Justice
(Care
and
Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 -
Rule 98 -Application- Claiming benefit of
juvenile justice Act- The application
under section 7A of the Act, 2000,
presented after appeal stood finally
decided. Wholly misconceived.
(Paras 4, 8, 10, 11)

Application dismissed. (E-6)

## Text

908 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
weight in the argument of the learned
A.G.A. that the possibility is there that the
appellant appeared in such examination to
manipulate and obtain a proof of age to
make him eligible for the benefit of the
provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act. No
doubt that there is no stage provided
under law for the claim of juvenility and
such plea can be raised at any time during
trial or even at appellate stage. But, a
belated
claim
surrounded
by
such
suspicious circumstances, aggravates the
doubt, as is the situation in the present
case.

17. On the basis of above
discussion, I find no illegality and
perversity in the impugned order and the
appeal has got no force and is liable to be
dismissed.

18. The appeal is dismissed.

19. Office is directed to transmit the
certified copy of this order to the court
concerned for information.
--------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 14.10.2015

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ARUN TANDON, J.
THE HON'BLE VIPIN SINHA, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 155 OF 2003

Karesh Pal @ Billoo and Ors.
 ...Appellants (In Jail)
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri Apul Mishra, Sri Dharmendra Singh, Sri
Ajay Srivastava.

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

A. Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection
of Children) Act, 2000- sections 7A, 15-
and
Juvenile
Justice
(Care
and
Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 -
Rule 98 -Application- Claiming benefit of
juvenile justice Act- The application
under section 7A of the Act, 2000,
presented after appeal stood finally
decided. Wholly misconceived.
(Paras 4, 8, 10, 11)

Application dismissed. (E-6)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Arun Tandon, J.
 & Hon'ble Vipin Sinha, J.)

1. The applicant/appellant was
convicted and sentenced by the trial court
vide judgment dated 19.12.2002 for an
offence under Sections 376 (2) (g),
323/149 of I.P.C. The Criminal Appeal
filed before this Court in which this
application has been filed was dismissed
on 05.10.2007. A Special Leave Petition
was filed against the judgment dated
5.10.2007. The Apex Court dismissed the
same on 28.3.2008. Thus the conviction
and sentenced imposed stands confirmed
upto Apex Court.

2. The applicant, taking aid of the
order
passed
in
a
Public
Interest
Litigation, being Criminal P.I.L. No.855
of 2012 wherein directions have been
issued on 24.5.2012 to the District Judges
throughout the State of U.P. and to the
Legal Services Authorities to initiate
proceedings before the Juvenile Justice
Board to determine the age of such
prisoners who are serving out sentence
and were juvenile on the date of the
commission of offence has filed this
application seeking the benefits under
Section 7A of The Juvenile Justice (Care
and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 and
1 All. Karesh Pal @ Billoo and Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
909
Rule 98 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and
Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 Rules
framed thereunder (herein after referred as
Act 2000 and Rules 2007 respectively).

3. The applicant does not appear to
have claimed any juvenility either during
the trial or in appeal before this Court or
before the Apex Court.

4. After the orders were passed in
the aforesaid Criminal P.I.L. on 24.5.2012
and
an
exercise
was
undertaken
accordingly, the case of the applicant also
came to be examined by the Juvenile
Justice Board, Agra. The applicant, on the
basis of his educational qualification
certificates placed before the Juvenile
Justice Board, was declared to be juvenile
as on the date of the commission of the
offence. The order of the Juvenile Justice
Board, however, fell short of any
direction for release. Upon obtaining the
said order from the Juvenile Justice Board
dated 4.7.2013, the applicant - Praveen
alias Tailor made an application before
the Apex Court under Section 7A (1)
proviso of the Act 2000. The said
application
was
permitted
to
be
withdrawn with liberty to the applicant to
approach "the appropriate court for
appropriate relief".

5. The applicant thereafter filed an
application before the Trial court for his
release, in terms of the said directions
issued by the Apex Court. The court
below namely the Addl. Sessions Judge,
Court No.6, Meerut, passed orders on
26.5.2015 observing that the Apex Court
has not issued any directions to the said
Court to entertain any such application.
Therefore, it was not possible for the
Court to proceed further. It was also
observed by the learned Addl. Sessions
Judge that the conviction of the applicant
has been confirmed by the High Court
and by the Apex Court. In such a situation
the application was not maintainable and
was, accordingly, dismissed as no relief
could be granted by the trial court.

6. On the basis of the said order, the
present application has been filed making
a prayer that the sentence and conviction
be set aside and the applicant be released
on bail under Section 7A of the Act, 2000.
The prayer clause does not appear to be
happily worded inasmuch as there is no
occasion now for this Court to set aside
the judgment and grant bail to the
applicant.

7. The issue is as to whether the
applicant can be released by this Court by
entertaining this application at this stage.

8. The Act 2000 under Section 7A
makes a provision for review of such
cases where a juvenile is detained against
law even in a disposed off case. Rule 98
of Rules, 2007, as framed by the Central
Government makes a provision for review
of such cases in disposed off matters
either by the Juvenile Justice Board or by
the State Government as the case may be
on appraisal of such fact. The said
authorities
are
empowered
to
pass
appropriate orders for immediate release
of the juveniles.

9. The application made by the
applicant before the Apex Court appears
to have been dismissed. It is possible that
it is for the said reason that the S.L.P. was
withdrawn.

10. Section 7A of the Act, 2000 as
well as Rule 98 of the Rules, 2007 read as
under:-
910 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

"Section 7A. Procedure to be
followed when claim of juvenility is
raised before any court-(1) Whenever a
claim of juvenility is raised before any
court or a court is of the opinion that an
accused person was a juvenile on the date
of commission of the offence, the court
shall make an inquiry, take such evidence
as may be necessary (but not an affidavit)
so as to determine the age of such person,
and shall record a finding whether the
person is a juvenile or a child or not,
stating his age as nearly as may be:

Provided
that
a
claim
of
juvenility may be raised before any court
and it shall be recognised at any stage,
even after final disposal of the case, and
such claim shall be determined in terms of
the provisions contained in this Act and
the rules made thereunder, even if the
juvenile has ceased to be so on or before
the date of commencement of this Act.

(2) If the court finds a person to
be a juvenile on the date of commission of
the offence under sub-section (1), it shall
forward the juvenile to the Board for
passing appropriate orders and the
sentence, if any, passed by a court shall
be deemed to have no effect."

"Rule 98. Disposed off cases of
juveniles in conflict with law.-The State
Government or as the case may be the
Board may, either suo motu or on an
application made for the purpose, review
the case of a person or a juvenile in
conflict with law, determine his juvenility
in terms of the provisions contained in the
Act and rule 12 of these rules and pass an
appropriate order in the interest of the
juvenile in conflict with law under section
64 of the Act, for the immediate release of
the juvenile in conflict with law whose
period of detention or imprisonment has
exceeded the maximum period provided in
section 15 of the said Act."

11. Having examined the provisions
of Section 7 A of Act 2000 and the Rule
98 of the Rules 2007, we are of the
considered opinion, in the facts of the
case,
that
the
appropriate
remedy
available to the appellant is to approach
the Juvenile Justice Board / State
Government for appropriate order being
made in the matter of his release if he has
been confined to imprisonment exceeding
the maximum period provided under
Section 15 of the Act, 2000. The
application under Section 7A of the Act
2000, as presented in the appeal which
stood finally decided under the judgment
and order of this Court dated 05.10.2007,
appears to be wholly misconceived.

12. The application is dismissed
with liberty to the petitioner to seek his
remedy accordingly.

13. This order is however subject to
the appeal, if any, filed against the order
of the Juvenile Justice Board declaring the
applicant to be a juvenile on the date of
incident.
-------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 17.09.2019

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE VED PRAKASH VAISH, J.
THE HON'BLE MOHD. FAIZ ALAM KHAN, J.

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2405 OF 2006

Shiv Kumar and Anr. ...Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri Karuna Shanker Rastogi, Sri Dharm
Trivedi, Sri J.P. Yadav, Sri Manoj Kumar
Misra, Sri Nishit Upreti, Sri Shiv S. E.
Chitamber,
Sri
Soniya
Mishra