# Pankaj and another v. State of U.P. and another

- **Citation:** (2006) 2 ILRA 610
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2005-05-26
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Application No.6067 of 2005
- **Bench:** Mrs. Poonam Srivastava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/pankaj-and-another-v-state-of-u-p-and-another-40557
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Act
2000-Section
6
(2)-
Application claiming benefit of juvenile
justice Act-rejected by session judge-on
the ground of constitution of Juvenile
Justice Board-held-the session judge is
bound to hold enquiry -keeping in view
of beneficial legislation socially orinted
to ensure every kind for reformative
measures- direction issued to move fresh
application-the session court to hold
enquiry on basis of evidence.
Case law discussed:
1997 (35) ACC-835

## Text

610 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2006
advertised vacancy having been filled up,
there
is
no
justification
of
giving
appointment after expiry of the select list.
In the event certain persons were
appointed after expiry of the select list,
the same cannot be made basis for issuing
a mandamus in favour of the petitioners at
such distance of time.

12. None of the submissions raised
by counsel for the petitioners has any
substance. On the basis of the aforesaid
submissions mandamus cannot be issued
to the respondents to give appointment to
the petitioners as Class-III employee.

The writ petition lacks merit and is
dismissed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 26.05.2005

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. POONAM
SRIVASTAVA, J.

Criminal Misc. Application No.6067 of 2005

Pankaj and another

...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & another ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri V.K. Singh
Sri A.K. Singh

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

Juvenile Justice (Care of Protection of
Children)
Act
2000-Section
6
(2)-
Application claiming benefit of juvenile
justice Act-rejected by session judge-on
the ground of constitution of Juvenile
Justice Board-held-the session judge is
bound to hold enquiry -keeping in view
of beneficial legislation socially orinted
to ensure every kind for reformative
measures- direction issued to move fresh
application-the session court to hold
enquiry on basis of evidence.
Case law discussed:
1997 (35) ACC-835

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Poonam Srivastava,J.)

Heard
learned
counsel
for
the
applicants and learned A.G.A. for the
State.

1. This application has been filed
challenging the order dated entertain an
application moved on behalf of the
applicants claiming to be a juvenile and is
entitled for protection under the Juvenile
Justice (Care and Protection of Children)
Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred as the
Act). A copy of the application has been
annexed as Annexure-5 to the affidavit,
stating therein that the two sessions trial
were amalgamated and S.T. No. 425 of
2003 is the leading case. The applicants
Pankaj and Neeraj claimed to be minor
and in the circumstances, a separate trial
was liable to be conducted. It was stated
in the application that the were students at
the time of occurrence. The date of birth
of the applicant Pankaj son of Sri Charan
Singh Saroha is 27.3.1986 according to
High School Certificate and the applicant
no. 2 son of Sri Raj Singh was born on
22.11.1987 as recorded in the School
Leaving Certificate. The application was
moved on 6.5.2005 that common trial
should not proceed but the application
was not entertained on the ground that
since the Juvenile Justice Board has been
constituted at Meerut, it is the jurisdiction
of the Board to decide and declare an
accused as juvenile. This application has
been moved challenging the said order. It
has been argued that Section 7 of the Act
prescribes procedure to be followed by a
2 All] Pankaj and another V. State of U.P. and another
611
Magistrate not empowered under the Act.
Sub clause (1) of Section 7 provides that
when any Magistrate not empowered to
exercise the powers of a Board constituted
under the Act is of the opinion that a
person brought before him under any of
the provisions of the Act is a juvenile or
the 'child', he shall without any delay
record such opinion and forward the
juvenile to the competent authority having
jurisdiction over the proceeding. Sub
clause (2) of Section 7 provides that the
competent
authority
to
which
such
proceedings are forwarded under sub
section (1) shall hold the inquiry as if the
juvenile or the child had originally been
brought before it. In the circumstances, it
was the duty of the court to have
ascertained
and
formed
an
opinion
whether the person, such as the applicants
in the instant case, was a juvenile in his
opinion or not. He could not have thrown
away the applicants and refused to
entertain it only because a Juvenile Justice
Board has now been constituted as
Meerut. It is also relevant to point out that
Section 6 sub clause (2) of the Act
provides that the powers conferred on the
Board by or under this Act may also be
exercised by the High Court and the Court
of Session, when the proceeding comes
before them in appeal, revision or
otherwise. In the present case, this
application was moved before the learned
Sessions Judge, Baghpat and, therefore,
he was bound to make preliminary inquiry
and come to a conclusion, instead of
relegating the applicants to approach the
Board. It is also noteworthy that the
Juvenile Justice Board constituted under
the Act do not meet each and every day as
a regular sitting of the court and in the
circumstances,
the
learned
Sessions
Judge, Baghpat should have at least
examined the matter and if he was of an
opinion that the applicants were juvenile
then an appropriate order should have
been passed, which the court had failed to
do so. In the case of Bhola Bhagat and
others Vs. State of Bihar 1997 (35,
A.C.C., 835, the Apex Court had held that
whenever a plea is raised by an accused
that he was 'child' and the court
entertains any doubt about the age, it has
to hold an inquiry itself for determination
of age or cause an inquiry to be held and
seek a report. It becomes obligatory for
the court, in case it entertains any doubt
about the age as claimed by the accused,
it was necessary for the court to hold an
inquiry itself. This legislation is a
beneficial legislation and socially oriented
so as to ensure every kind for reformative
measures to be taken in respect of an
accused who is a 'child' within the
meaning of the Act. In the instant case,
nothing has been done by the learned
Sessions Judge, Baghpat. It is not a case
where he completely lacked jurisdiction
to even conduct a preliminary inquiry
regarding authenticity of the claim made
by the applicants that they were juvenile
within the meaning of the Act. The court
was itself competent in view of the
Section 6 (2) of the Act to have conducted
an inquiry but it appears that the
application was not even entertained only
because Juvenile Justice Board was
constituted. This order can not be upheld
and is, therefore, quashed. The applicants
are permitted to move another application
and the learned Sessions Judge, Baghpat
shall make a preliminary inquiry as
provided under the Act and only if he
comes to a definite conclusion that the
applicants are not juvenile on the basis of
the evidence produced before him, can
proceed with the joint trial in the event,
there is an iota of doubt regarding the age
of the applicants and the court feels that
612 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2006
the applicants are minor children within
the meaning of the Act, he shall proceed
to make an inquiry in accordance with
law and refer the matter to the Board or
act in accordance with Section 6 (2) of the
Act.

2. In the circumstances, this
application is allowed and the impugned
order dated 6.5.2005 is set aside. The
matter is sent back for a decision on
merit.

Application Allowed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 03.03.2006

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE S.N. SRIVASTAVA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.12458 of 2006

Purusottam Giri

...Petitioner
Versus
Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation,
Bulandshahr and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri V.S. Rajpoot
Sri H.M. Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri V.K. Singh
Sri S.P. Singh
S.C.

High Court Rules, 1952-Chapter XXIVrule
2-A-Vakalatnama-in
absence
of
particular of full name, of counsel,
complete address of chamber/office and
residence-including Phone number, date
of sign and enrollment number general
mandamus issued-not to accept such
vakalatnama-necessary direction issued
to all the District Judges, Tribunal, Lower
Court
etc.
to
ensure
the
proper
implementation.

Held: Para 9, 10 & 11
Since in the instant case, the learned
counsel was asked to remove defect and
he
has
since
removed
the
defects
consistent with the mandate of Rule 2 A
of the Rules of the Court, I am
disinclined to proceed further in this
regard.
However,
in the
facts and
circumstances,
considering
that
the
Courts
are
deluged
with
Vakalatnamas/memos
of
appearance
incomplete in requisite details I feel
called to issue judicial flat directing
stamp
reporter
not
to
accept
Vakalatnama/memo of appearance in
any case unless they are complete in all
requisite details as embodied in Rule 2-A
of the Rules of Court.

In the above conspectus, it is hereby
mandated that the Stamp reporter of the
Court/Office
shall
scrutinize
the
Vakalatnama very closely and unless
they are complete in all requisite details
as embodied in Rule 2-A of the Rules of
the Court, he will not allow the petition
to be processed for being presented
before the Court.

In
my
considered
view
there
is
compelling need to amend the statutory
Rules pertaining to subordinate courts as
well
on
similar
lines.
Till
such
amendments
are
effected
in
the
statutory rules, it would be in the fitness
of things to circulate a copy of this
judgment to all the District Judges/all
the Chairmen of the Tribunals/Chief
Secretary, U.P. Shasan Lucknow for strict
compliance with the resolution of the Bar
Council of the State of U.P.. It may be
suggested that the District Judges and
all authorities concerned in State of U.P.
shall
maintain
a
register
docketing
complete details about the lawyers
practicing, which may be duly prepared
upon verification of original enrolment
certificates of an Advocate and whenever
any Vakalatnama is filed and in case of
any suspicion about the authenticity of
registration/enrolment number may be
processed for being presented before the
Courts/Tribunals etc.
Case law discussed: