# Revisionist v. State of U.P - **Citation:** (2003) 1 ILRA 152 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2003-02-11 - **Case number:** Criminal Revision No. 64 of 2003 - **Bench:** K.N. Sinha - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/revisionist-v-state-of-u-p-39919 - **Pages:** 2 ## Headnote U.P. Trade Tax Act- Section -8 c (3 A) Power to issue direction- for taking security in cash from the dealer before issuing form 31- demand of cash security more than the amount of tax liability- held- arbitrary and illegal- direction issued to the Commissioner to issue fresh circular as per observation of the Court. Held - Para 22 The Commissioner while issuing the circular under section 8 C (3A) can adopt any reasonable and rational method so that the cash security is demanded of an amount which is reasonable having nexus to the amount of tax which would ## Text http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in 152 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2003 9. We find no illegality in the impugned order of the Tribunal. The appeal is dismissed. --------- REVISIONAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.2.20033 BEFORE THE HON'BLE K.N. SINHA, J. Criminal Revision No. 64 of 2003 Deepak Kumar ...Revisionist Versus State of U.P. ...Opposite Party Counsel for the Revisionist: Sri Kamal Singh Yadav Counsel for the Opposite Party: A.G.A. Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of children) Act, 2000- if the release is refused on these ground the court should record finding as to whether any such ground exists or not the impugned order does not show any such ground except that it is against law. The impugned order has been passed in utter disregard of section 12 of the Act. Held- Para 6 The revision is therefore, allowed. The revisionist shall be released on bail on his furnishing two sureties and personal bond to the satisfaction of the Magistrate concerned. (Delivered by Hon'ble K.N. Sinha, J.) 1. The present revision has been filed against the order dated 17.12.2002 passed by Additional Session Judge I Baghpat refusing bail application number 1114 of 2002 moved by revisionist under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2000, (hereinafter referred to as Act). 2. The brief facts giving rise to this revision are that on 19.6.2002 revisionist Deepak Kumar committed rape on Km. Ujma Praveen. The revisionist was arrested and he moved for bail which was rejected. The revisionist approached this Court by filing criminal revision no. 2888 of 2002 which was disposed of by this Court by order dated 15.11.2002 directing the Sessions Judge to decide the bail application on merit by exercising his power vested on him by Section 6 (2) of the Act keeping in view the provisions of Section 12 of the Act. After the remand of the case and the above direction by this Court the Sessions Judge transferred the bail application to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge I, who rejected the bail application hence this revision. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned A.G.A. perused the impugned order. This Court has directed to decide the matter keeping in view the provisions of Section 12 of the Act. Section 12 of the Act reads as follows : 12. Bail of Juvenile- (1) when any person accused of a bailable or non bailable offence and apparently a juvenile is arrested or detained or appears or is 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, be released on bail with or without surety but he shall not be so released if there appear reasonable grounds for believing that the release is likely to bring http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in 1All] Deepak Kumar V. State of U.P. 153 him into association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or that his release would defeat the ends of justice. (2)....... (3)....... 4. According to Sub Section (1) of Section 12 any person, being juvenile shall be released on bail with or without surety. However, for refusal of the bail there are only three grounds- firstly if the release is likely to bring him into the association with any known criminal. Secondly, exposes him to moral, physical or psychological danger and thirdly if his release would defeat the ends of justice. 5. This Court has been repeatedly directing that if the release is refused on these grounds the court should record finding as to whether any such ground exists or not. It is not that the mere quoting of few lines from this Act, the bail should be refused. The impugned order does not show any such ground except that it is against law. Being against law is no ground under Section 12 of the Act whereas this Court by its order dated 15.11.2002 directed the Sessions Judge to decide the bail application keeping in view the provision of Section 12 of the Act. The impugned order has been passed in utter disregard of Section 12 of the Act but it nowhere shows that the release would defeat the ends of justice and moreover there is also nothing to show as to how the release would defeat the ends of justice. No doubt the girl is minor but at the same time the boy is also minor and is detained in Children Home for the last 7-8 months. It appears that the Sessions Court was bent upon refusing the bail application and that is why ignored the direction of this Court, which is not proper for the Additional Sessions Judge concerned. 6. The revision is therefore, allowed. The revisionist shall be released on bail on his furnishing two sureties and personal bond to the satisfaction of the Magistrate concerned. -------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD FEBRUARY 7, 2003 BEFORE THE HON'BLE M. KATJU, J. THE HON'BLE PRAKASH KRISHNA, J. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 387 of 2000 M/s Girraj Stone Crusher Private Limited, Agra ...Petitioner Versus The Commissioner of Trade Tax and another ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Bharatji Agarwal Sri Rakesh Ranjan Agarwal Counsel for the Respondents: S.C. U.P. Trade Tax Act- Section -8 c (3 A) Power to issue direction- for taking security in cash from the dealer before issuing form 31- demand of cash security more than the amount of tax liability- held- arbitrary and illegal- direction issued to the Commissioner to issue fresh circular as per observation of the Court. Held - Para 22 The Commissioner while issuing the circular under section 8 C (3A) can adopt any reasonable and rational method so that the cash security is demanded of an amount which is reasonable having nexus to the amount of tax which would