# Mushtaq Ali @ Guddu & Ors. Revisionists v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** Criminal Revision No. 1107 of 1996
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2020-02-05
- **Case number:** Criminal Revision No. 1107 of 1996
- **Bench:** Sudhir Agarwal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/mushtaq-ali-guddu-ors-revisionists-v-state-of-u-p-ors-46294
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

A. Criminal law- Dowry Prohibition Act,
1961-Sections
3⁄4-Code
of
Criminal
Procedure,
1973-Section
397/401
&
Indian Penal Code,1860-Sections 323/34,
498-A, 506 - challenge to-punishment
awarded-revisionists
found
guilty
of
demand of dowry and committing cruelty
upon victim-revisionists claim for leniency
in the matter of punishment awarded
taking their advanced age-pendency of
matter for 23 years has helped the
revisionists
in
deferring
punishmentrevisionists are not entitled for benefit of
section 4 of the Act 1958.(Para 17 to 42)

Justice demands that courts should impose
punishment befitting the crime so that the
courts reflect public abhorrence of the crime.
Exonerating a guilty person due to any reason
whatsoever has caused more damage to the
society since easy acquittal has resulted in
encouraging
them
to
break
law
with
impunity.((Para 23 to 29)

The revision is dismissed. (E-6)

List of Cases Cited:-

## Text

1056 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(2020)03-05ILR A1056
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 05.02.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUDHIR AGARWAL, J.

Criminal Revision No. 1107 of 1996

Mushtaq Ali @ Guddu & Ors. ...Revisionists
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Revisionists:
Sri H.N.Sharma, Sri P.K. Singh

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

A. Criminal law- Dowry Prohibition Act,
1961-Sections
3⁄4-Code
of
Criminal
Procedure,
1973-Section
397/401
&
Indian Penal Code,1860-Sections 323/34,
498-A, 506 - challenge to-punishment
awarded-revisionists
found
guilty
of
demand of dowry and committing cruelty
upon victim-revisionists claim for leniency
in the matter of punishment awarded
taking their advanced age-pendency of
matter for 23 years has helped the
revisionists
in
deferring
punishmentrevisionists are not entitled for benefit of
section 4 of the Act 1958.(Para 17 to 42)

Justice demands that courts should impose
punishment befitting the crime so that the
courts reflect public abhorrence of the crime.
Exonerating a guilty person due to any reason
whatsoever has caused more damage to the
society since easy acquittal has resulted in
encouraging
them
to
break
law
with
impunity.((Para 23 to 29)

The revision is dismissed. (E-6)

List of Cases Cited:-

1. Babu & ors. Vs. St. Of U.P. (2007) 9 ADJ 107
2. Sanjay Kumar Vs. St. Of U.P. (2012) 8 SCC
537

3. Rajendra Pralhadrao Wasnik Vs. St. Of Mah.,
AIR (2012) SC 1377

4. Hazara Singh Vs. Raj Kumar & ors., (2013) 9
SCC 516

5. Shailesh Jasvantbhai & Anr. Vs. St. Of Guj. &
ors. (2006) 2 SCC 359

6. Ahmed Hussein Vali Mohammad Saiyed &
Anr. Vs. St. Of Guj., (2009) 7 SCC 254

7. Jameel Vs. St. Of U.P.,(2010) 12 SCC 532

8. Guru Basavaraj @ Benne Settapa Vs. St. Of
Karnataka, (2018) 8 SCC 734

9. Gopal Singh Vs. St. Of UK, (2013) 3 JT 444

10. Ram Prakash Vs. St. Of H.P.,AIR (1973) SC
780

(Delivered by Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.)

1. This Criminal Revision under
Sections 397/ 401 Cr.P.C has been
preferred by Mushtaq Ali @ Guddu, Guljar,
Abdul Majeed and Samim, accusedappellants, against judgment and order
dated 14.08.1996, passed by Sri U.S.
Tripathi, the then Sessions Judge, Kanpur
Dehat, dismissing appeal of AppellantRevisionists
against
judgment
dated
08.12.1995 passed by 03rd Additional Civil
Judge / Magistrate, Kanpur Dehat in
Criminal Case No. 221 of 1995. By the
judment and order dated 08.12.1995,
learned Magistrate had found all the four
Accused-Revisionists guilty under Section
323 read with Sections 34, 498-A, 506 IPC
and Section 3 read with Section 4 of Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred
to as "D.P. Act, 1961"). Each of them were
convicted and sentenced under Section 323
3-5 All. Mushtaq Ali @ Guddu & Ors.Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1057
IPC read with Section 34 IPC to undergo
six month's imprisonment; under Section
498A IPC, 1 1⁄2 years imprisonment; under
Section 506 IPC two years imprisonment
and under Section 3 read with Section 4 of
D.P. Act, 1961, three month's simple
imprisonment". All the sentences were
directed to run concurrently.

2. Prosecution case in brief is that
Smt. Raisa Begum, sister of Complainant -
Mohammad Nafis was married to Accused,
Mushtaq Ali @ Guddu on 30.04.1991. Smt.
Raisa Begum had gone to her-in-laws
house with jewelry received in dowry and
cash of Rs.17,000/-. After a few days of
marriage, all the four Accused-Revisionists
started exerting pressure on her to bring
T.V and cash from her parental house. Smt.
Raisa expressed her inability to bring cash
and T.V, whereupon accused started beating
and torturing, even kept her starving.
Information of this situation was sent by
complainant's sister through postal inland
letter, but members of her parental home
continued to advise her to spend life by
conciliating and adjusting with her in-laws.
On getting information about serious
problems and torture subjected to her sister,
Complainant, Mohammad Nafis alongwith
his relatives Zafer-U-deen and Munna
reached the residence of accused in village
Makanpur on 24.04.1993 at about 11:00
a.m. Seeing her brother, Smt. Raisa Bano
started lamenting loudly and complained
that her in-laws used to beat her and
pressurized for bringing T.V and cash; did
not offer food or cloth and also tried to set
her on fire after pouring kerosene oil but
any how she escaped.

3. At the time of filing of complaint
Raisa was pregnant. She requested her
brother to take her with him lest the
accused would kill her. When Complainant
requested accused, Nafis to send his sister
with him, all Accused-Revisionists started
beating Complainant with kicks and fists
and also threatened that only dead-body of
Complainant's sister would be sent out of
their house. Despite repeated requests by
Raisa, Accused-Revisionists locked her in a
room in front of Complainant and his
relatives. Thereafter Complainant went to
Police Station Bilhor, for lodging a report,
but report was not lodged, therefore,
Complainant
filed
complaint
on
27.04.1993.

4. Statements of Nafis under Section
200 Cr.P.C and his sister Raisa Begum
under Section 202 Cr.P.C. were recorded
and all the four accused were summoned.
Thereafter charge was framed against
Accused-Revisionists
under
Sections
324/34, 498-A, 504, 506 I.P.C and 3/4 D.P.
Act, 1961.

5. In support of case, Complainant has
examined Smt. Raisa Begum as P.W 1,
Jamruddin as P.W 2 and Complainant
himself as P.W. 3 under Section 244 Cr.P.C.
On the basis of evidence, charge was
amended and Accused-Revisionists were
charged under Sections 323/34, 498-A,
504, 506 I.P.C and Section 3/4 D.P. Act,
1961.
Consequent
upon
framing
of
amended charge, prosecution examined
P.W-1 Raeesa Begum, P.W-2 Jafaruddin
and P.W 3 Nafis under Section 246 Cr.P.C.

6.

Accused-Revisionists
were
examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. They
denied the charge and claimed trial. In
support of defence, accused produced D.W
- 1, Saiyyad Ali Nabi, and D.W. - 2, Ali
Akhtar.

7. After going through the evidence
available on record and hearing arguments
1058 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
of learned counsel for the parties, learned
Magistrate
recorded
judgement
of
conviction
against
all
accused
and
sentenced them as detailed above by
judgment and order dated 08.12.1995. The
appeal
filed
by
Accused-Revisionists
before Sessions Judge, did not find favour
and it was dismissed vide judgment and
order dated 14.08.1996, which is impugned
in this Revision.

8.

Since
Accused-Revisionist-3,
Abdul Majeed @ Chhanga died on
07.12.2015, revision stood abated-qua
Revisionist-3 vide order of this Court dated
18.09.2019.

9. I have heard Sri P.K. Singh, learned
counsel for Revisionists-1, 2 and 4 and
perused the material available on record.

10. Learned counsel appearing for
Revisionists submitted that one of the
Revisionist is 60 years of age and mother
of Mushtaq Ali is also in advanced age and
there is no specific allegation against her,
therefore case of Revisionists can be
segregated and period of sentence be
reduced. It has also been submitted that
Revisionists may be granted benefit of
Probation
of
Offenders
Act,
1958
(hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1958").

11. Learned A.G.A. supporting the
judgment
in
question
argued
that
prosecution
witnesses
have
clearly
supported and proved case of prosecution
and learned counsel for Revisionists having
failed to point out any manifest error or
illegality therein, no interference is called
for in this revision considering the nature of
allegations and offences found proved
against Revisionists.

12. As per record, PW-1, Smt. Raisa
Begum,
the
victim
and
sister
of
Complainant, has very categorically stated
that for demand of dowry and non
satisfaction thereof, she was treated with
cruelty so much so that at one occasion
Accused-Revisionists attempted to set her
on fire by pouring kerosene oil and when
she escaped somehow, later she was
allowed to appear in Court when she
promised with mother-in-law, i.e., AccusedRevisionist 4, that she will depose in their
favour. She has also said very categorically
that father-in-law used to exhort and said
that victim PW-1, Smt. Raisa Begum, be
beaten.

13. PW-2, Jamruddin is a witness who
had participated in marriage, known to
family of Complainant and was aware of
complaint of victim that she used to be
tortured and treated with cruelty for non
satisfaction of demand of dowry by
Revisionists.

14. Complainant, PW-3, Mohd.
Nafees is the brother of victim. He has also
supported prosecution case.

15. Nothing otherwise could be
extracted from cross-examination of above
witnesses and, therefore, in my view,
aforesaid witnesses have deposed clearly,
their statement is creditworthy, which has
relied by Court below to prove the charge
levelled against Revisionists in trial.

16. It is in this backdrop this Court
has to examine, "whether Revisionists-1, 2
and 4 deserves any leniency in the matter
of sentence" as argued by learned counsel
for Revisionists; and "do they deserves to
be granted benefit of Act, 1958".
3-5 All. Mushtaq Ali @ Guddu & Ors.Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1059

17. Revisionists have been found
guilty of demand of dowry and for non
satisfaction
of
demand
of
dowry
committing cruelty upon victim Smt. Raisa
Begum and also an attempt to burn her by
pouring kerosene oil. The offence founded
on demand of dowry and non satisfaction
thereof is not only quite serious but a curse.
It is an evil spread in society wherein
victim is always a woman. A woman is
subjected to cruelty and torture for non
satisfaction of dowry, i.e., for materialistic
reasons. Decades and centuries have passed
witnessing
approach
of
in-laws
of
bridegroom of demanding dowry as if it is
their birth right and obligation on the part
of bride side to satisfy such demand. Time
and again it has been deprecated and
condemned, being always against civilized
society. Even legislature has come forward
to make stringent laws in this respect.
Unfortunately the tentacles of disease are
so deep embedded that instead of being
reduced, we find its excess in most part of
society, irrespective of caste, creed and
religion. Those who support dowry, claim it
to be an ancient tradition and means to help
newly wedded couple to settle in their life.
They forget that responsibility for a descent
life of couple, is on both sides and cannot
be claimed to be an obligation only on the
part of bride's parents. Dowry is a root and
host of social atrocities against woman. The
custom of presenting dowry is the crudest
expression of male dominance in society. I
do not propose to write an essay on the
subject since now it cannot be doubted that
demand of dowry and cruelty for non
satisfaction thereof is a blot on society and
cannot be allowed to perpetuate in a
civilized society, hence legislation made to
prevent it must not only be implemented
with widest amplitude but those who are
guilty should be dealt with stern action and
appropriate
punishment
should
be
improved so that it may not only be
punitive to the violators but also a
preventive lesson to others.

18. Demand of dowry from bride and her
parents and torture of bride for non satisfaction
can also be said to be violation of human rights
in a big way. It is also a gender bias and
discrimination towards woman. Whenever a
demand of dowry is made to a bride and she
resist for whatever reason, may be including
financial scarcity and poverty of her parents, the
ultimate result is adverse on bride which also
cause loss of her self esteem and downgrade of
status.

19. In a case where a bridegroom or his
family members have committed offence of
demanding dowry and committing cruelty and
torture upon bride for non satisfaction of said
demand, Court should adopt and ensure a zero
tolerance policy against offenders and ensure
enforcement of law strictly, stringently and
without showing any leniency to such
offenders.

20. Looking to the facts of this case, in the
backdrop of above discussion, it cannot be
doubted that Revisionists are guilty of
committing one of the most heinous crime
against woman and they deserve to be dealt
with iron hands.

21. The contention of learned counsel
for revisionists that Respondent-4 has no
role in the matter and there is no specific
allegation is incorrect inasmuch as victim
herself has said clearly that her mother-inlaw alongwith others was constantly
pressurizing her to satisfy demand of
dowry and also treated her with cruelty for
non satisfaction thereof.

22. So far as advance age of
Revisionists-1 and 4 is concerned, it cannot
1060 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
be overlooked that cannon of law which
determine
punishment
to
AccusedRevisionists up to the level of Appellate
Court declared verdict in 1996 but
pendency of matter for the last 23 years in
this Court has helped Revisionists in
deferring punishment so as now to claim
that taking their advance age, some
leniency in the matter of punishment be
shown. Pendency of revision in this Court
cannot be allowed to help offender.

23. A criminal offence is considered
as a wrong against the State, and, society in
particular, even though it is committed
against individual(s). This Court in State of
U.P. Vs. Babu and others 2007(9) ADJ,
107 (DB) has said:

"The duty of the Court of law is
heavy in the sense that it should ensure that
no innocent should be punished but
simultaneously
it
is
also
under
an
obligation to see that no guilty person
should escape from the clutches of law by
taking advantage of so-called technicalities
as this will not only lead to further serious
threats to the entire society but may also
shake the confidence of public at large in
the system of dispensation of justice. Our
experience has shown that exonerating a
guilty
person
due
to
any
reason
whatsoever has caused more damage to
the society since it has multiplied the
occurrence of crime as well as has also
produced more criminals attracting them
to commit crime since easy acquittal has
resulted in encouraging them to break law
with impunity. It will be useful to remind
with the words of caution as observed by
the Hon'ble Apex Court (Krishna Ayer J.)
in Shiva Ji Sahabrao Bobade (supra)
emphasizing to keep balance between the
individual liberty and evil of acquitting
guilty persons. The Court observed that we
should remind ourselves of necessary social
perspective in criminal cases which suffers
from insufficient forensic appreciation. The
dangers of exaggerated devotion to the rule
of benefit of doubt at the expense of social
defence and to the soothing sentiment that
all acquittals are always good regardless of
justice to the victim and the community,
demand
special
emphasis
in
the
contemporary context of escalating crime
and escape. The Courts having duty of
judicial
review
owe
the
public
accountability of such system. The golden
thread of proof beyond reasonable doubt
should not be stretched morbidly to
embrace every hunch, hesitancy and
degree of doubt. The excessive solicitude
reflected in the attitude that a thousand
guilty men may go but one innocent martyr
shall not suffer is a false dilemma. Only
reasonable doubts belong to the accused.
Otherwise any practical system of justice
will then break down and lose credibility
with the community. The evil of acquitting
a guilty person light-heartedly goes much
beyond the simple fact that just one guilty
person has gone unpunished. If unmerited
acquittals become general, they tend to
lead to a cynical disregard of the law, and
this in turn leads to a public demand for
harsher legal presumption against indicted
persons and more severe punishment of
those who are found guilty. Too frequent
acquittals of the guilty may lead to a
ferocious penal law, eventually eroding the
judicial
protection
of
the
guiltless.
Miscarriage of justice may arise from the
acquittal of the guilty no less than from the
conviction of innocent." (emphasis added)

24. The above observations were
made on the question of conviction but, in
my view, once the prosecution has
succeeded to prove its case and conviction
is upheld by all the Courts, if its
3-5 All. Mushtaq Ali @ Guddu & Ors.Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1061
consequence is allowed to be diluted by
modifying punishment to the extent of
having no consequence merely on the
ground of time consumed in legal remedy,
whatsoever, it would make a mockery of
entire criminal system of justice since
victim and his family i.e. the real suffers, as
also the society, have no control over such
proceedings and delay occurred therein.

25. Commenting upon sentencing
policy, in State of U.P. Vs. Sanjay Kumar
2012 (8) SCC 537, Court said that
punishments should reflect the gravity of
offence and also criminal background of
convict. The graver the offence and longer
the criminal record, more severe is the
punishment to be awarded. By laying
emphasis on individualised justice, and
shaping the result of crime to the
circumstances of offender and needs of
victim and community, restorative justice
eschews uniformity of sentencing. In para
21 of the judgment, Court further said:

"Undue sympathy to impose
inadequate sentence would do more harm
to the public system to undermine the
public confidence in the efficacy of law
and society could not long endure under
serious threats" (English translation by
Court)

26. Court further said that it is the
duty of Courts to award proper sentence,
having regard to the nature of offence and
the manner in which it was executed or
committed, etc. Courts should impose a
punishment befitting the crime so that
Courts are able to accurately reflect upon
public abhorrence of the crime. It is the
nature and gravity of crime, and not the
criminal,
which
are
germane
for
consideration of appropriate punishment in
a criminal trial. Imposition of sentence
without considering its effect on social
order, in many cases, may be in reality, a
futile exercise.

27. In Rajendra Pralhadrao Wasnik
Vs. State of Maharashtra AIR 2012 SC
1377, Court said:

"Every punishment imposed is
bound to have its effect not only on the
accused alone, but also on the society as a
whole."

28. In Hazara Singh Vs. Raj Kumar
and others (2013) 9 SCC 516, Court
referred to its earlier decision in Shailesh
Jasvantbhai and another Vs. State of
Gujarat and others (2006) 2 SCC 359 and
quoted with approval, following passage:

"... undue sympathy to impose
inadequate sentence would do more harm
to the justice system to undermine the
public confidence in the efficacy of law and
society could not long endure under such
serious threats. It is, therefore, the duty of
every court to award proper sentence
having regard to the nature of the offence
and the manner in which it was executed or
committed etc."

(emphasis added)

29.

In
Ahmed
Hussein
Vali
Mohammed Saiyed and Anr. Vs. State of
Gujarat 2009 (7) SCC 254, Court said:

"99. The object of awarding
appropriate sentence should be to protect
the society and to deter the criminal from
achieving the avowed object to law by
imposing appropriate
sentence.
It
is
expected that the courts would operate the
sentencing system so as to impose such
sentence, which reflects the conscience of
1062 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the society and the sentencing process has
to be stern where it should be. ....

100. Justice demands that courts
should impose punishment befitting the
crime so that the courts reflect public
abhorrence of the crime. The court must
not only keep in view the rights of the
victim of the crime and the society at large
while
considering
the
imposition
of
appropriate punishment. The court will be
failing
in
its
duty
if
appropriate
punishment is not awarded for a crime
which has been committed not only
against the individual victim but also
against the society to which both the
criminal and the victim belong." (emphasis
added)

30. In Hazara Singh Vs. Raj Kumar
and others (supra), the Court in para 17
also said:

"We also reiterate that undue
sympathy to impose inadequate sentence
would do more harm to the justice system
to undermine the public confidence in the
efficacy of law. It is the duty of every court
to award proper sentence having regard to
the nature of the offence and the manner in
which it was executed or committed. The
Court must not only keep in view the rights
of the victim of the crime but also the
society at large while considering the
imposition of appropriate punishment."
(emphasis added)

31. In the matter of awarding
punishment multiple factors have to be
considered by this Court. Law regulates
social interests, arbitrates conflicting claims
and demands. Security of individuals as
well as property of individuals is one of the
essential functions of the State. The
administration of criminal law justice is a
mode to achieve this goal. The inherent
cardinal
principle
of
criminal
administration of justice is that the
punishment imposed on an offender should
be adequate so as to serve the purpose of
deterrence as well as reformation. It should
reflect
the
crime,
the
offender
has
committed and should be proportionate to
the gravity of offence. Sentencing process
should be stern so as to give a message to
the offender as well as the person like him,
roaming free in the society, not to indulge
in criminal activities but also to give a
message to society that an offence if
committed, would not go unpunished. The
offender should be suitably punished so
that society also get a message that if
something wrong has been done, one will
have to pay for it in proper manner,
irrespective of time lag.

32. Further sentencing process should
be stern but tampered with mercy whereever it is so warranted. How and in what
manner element of leniency shall prevail,
will depend upon multifarious reasons
including the facts and circumstances of
individual case, nature of crime, the matter
in which it was committed, whether
preplanned or otherwise, the motive,
conduct, nature of weapon used etc. But
one cannot lose sight of the fact that undue
sympathy to impose inadequate sentence
would do more harm to justice system as it
is bound to undermine public confidence in
the efficacy of law. The society cannot long
endure such serious threats. It is duty of
court to give adequate, proper and suitable
sentence, having regard to various aspects,
some of which, are noticed above.

33.

In
Ahmed
Hussein
Vali
Mohammed Saiyed and another Vs.
State of Gujrat (supra), Court confirmed
that:
3-5 All. Mushtaq Ali @ Guddu & Ors.Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1063

"any liberal attitude by imposing
meager
sentences
or
taking
too
sympathetic view merely on account of
lapse of time in respect of such offences
will be result-wise counter productive in
the long run and against the interest of
society which needs to be cared for and
strengthened by string of deterrence inbuilt
in the sentencing system". (emphasis
added)

34 . In Jameel Vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh, 2010 (12) SCC 532, the Court
held that:

"It is the duty of every court to
award proper sentence having regard to
the nature of the offence and the
manner in which it was executed or
committed. The sentencing courts are
expected to consider all relevant facts
and circumstances bearing on the
question of sentence and proceed to
impose a sentence commensurate with
the gravity of the offence."

(emphasis added)

35. In Guru Basavaraj @ Benne
Settapa Vs. State of Karnataka, 2012
(8) SCC 734, Court said that:

"The cry of the collective for
justice,
which
includes
adequate
punishment cannot be lightly ignored."

36. In Gopal Singh Vs. State of
Uttarakhand, 2013 (3) JT 444, the
Court said that:

"Just
punishment
is
the
collective cry of the society. While the
collective cry has to be kept uppermost
in
the
mind,
simultaneously
the
principle of proportionality between the
crime and punishment cannot be totally
brushed aside. The principle of just
punishment is the bedrock of sentencing
in respect of a criminal offence"
(emphasis added)

37. Thus, I do not find any reason
to show leniency for any Revisionists
considering nature of crime committed
by them.

38. Now coming to second
question, "whether Revisionists are
entitled for benefit under Act, 1958";
learned counsel for Revisionists could
not dispute that Section 3 thereof would
have no application in the present case.
Benefit,
therefore,
is
claimed
by
requesting Court to exercise its power
under Section 4 of Act, 1958.

39. I find that Section 4 of Act,
1958 imposes an obligation upon Court
to have regard to the circumstances of
case including nature of offence and
character of offender. The word "may"
in Section 4 has been held as not to be
read as must in Ram Prakash vs. State
of Himachal Pradesh, AIR 1973 SC
780.

40. Looking to the nature of
offence, I do not find it appropriate to
import Section 4 of Act, 1958 in the
case in hand so as to grant any benefit
to Revisionists-1, 2 and 4.

41. In view of above discussion, I
answer
both
questions
against
Revisionists.

42. Revision lacks merit. Dismissed
accordingly.

43. Interim order, if any, stands
vacated.
1064 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
----------
(2020)03-05ILR A1064
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 25.02.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANISH MATHUR, J.

Criminal Revision No. 1234 of 2018

Jiya-Uddin (Minor) ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sri Punit Kumar Shukla, Amitchaudhary
(amicus curiae)

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
Govt. Advocate

A. Criminal Law- Juvenile Justice (Care
and Protection of Children) Act 2015section 12, 15 and 18(3)- Code of Criminal
Procedure,1973-Section 397/401 & Indian
Penal Code,1860-Sections 376 application-
grant of bail to juvenile-rejection of bail by
lower
court-However,
Section
12(1)
provides for bail to a child in conflict with
law-section 15 and 18(3) are not ejusdem
generis with that of section 12-hence,
preliminary assessment is not required to
be made at the time of considering bail
application u/s 12 of the Act-accusedjuvenile
granted
bail
on
his
father
furnishing a personal bond with two
sureties.(Para 3 to 35)

Section 12(1) of juvenile justice act provides for
If release is likely to bring that person into
association with any known criminal or be
exposed to any moral, physical or psychological
danger or the person's release would defeat the
ends of justice. Board shall record the reasons
for denying bail.(Para 22)

The revision is allowed. (E-6)

List of Cases Cited:-
1. Radhika(juvenile) Vs. St. Fo U.P. Crl. Appeal
No. 4418 of 2019

2. Mangesh Rajbhar Vs. St. Of U.P. & Anr.
(2018) 6 ADJ 60

3. Santosh Vs. St. Of U.P. & Ors. Crl. Appeal No.
5814 of 2018

4. Bharat Aluminium Co. Vs. Kaiser Aluminium
Technical Services (2012) 9 SCC 552

5. Shiv Shakti Cooperative Housing Society

(Delivered by Hon'ble Manish Mathur, J.)

1. Heard Mr. Amit Chaudhary,
learned amicus curiae, Mr. Punit Kumar
Shukla, learned counsel for revisionist and
Mr. Aniruddh Kumar Singh, learned
Additional
Government
Advocate
appearing on behalf of State. As per report
of
Chief
Judicial
Magistrate
dated
17.12.2018, notices were served personally
upon Opposite Party no.2 but no one has
put in appearance on his behalf.

2. Present criminal revision has been
filed against order dated 04.05.2018 passed
by Juvenile Justice Board, Sitapur in
Criminal Miscellaneous Case No.57 of
2017 bearing Case Crime No.153 of 2017,
under Section 376 IPC, Police Station
Mishrikh, District Sitapur. Under challenge
is also the order dated 25.08.2018 passed
by IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Sitapur
in Criminal Appeal No.42 of 2018
upholding the order of rejection. Present
case is where the revisionist was aged
between 16 to 18 years, i.e. revisionist was
aged about 16 years one month and 21
days.

3. Learned AGA at the very outset has
submitted that the Juvenile Justice (Care
and Protection of Children) Act has
undergone a major change in the year 2015