# Revisionist v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2013) 1 ILRA 26
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2013-01-10
- **Bench:** V.P.Pathak
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/revisionist-v-state-of-u-p-42472
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

Children) Act 2000 Section 2 (k) and
2(l)-word "Juvenile" explained who has
not obtained 18 year age-incidence took
place on 19.05.1997-C.M.O. Opinioned
18.12.1997
as seventeen year
ageadmittedly when the amended provision
1 All] Iqbal V. State of U.P
27
enforced-revisionist
being
seventeen
years
age
falls
within
Juvenile-non
consideration of this aspect-held-not
proper-order quashed-direction for fresh
consideration remain

Held: Para 15

While applying the ratio of the aforesaid
verdicts of Hon'ble Apex Court referred
to above, in the present matter, it is
apparent
that
the
incident
is
of
19.5.1997
and
according
to
earlier
opinion of the Chief Medical Officer
which was given on 18.12.1997, the age
of the revisionist was opined to be about
17 years. Hence it is clear that at the
time of incident, the revisionist was
below
18
years.
According
to
the
amended
Act
and
in
view
of
the
aforesaid
verdicts,
the
applicant
is
entitled to the benefit of the age of
juvenility given in the new Act as in view
of Sections 2(k) and 2(l) " juvenile" or "
child" means a person who has not
completed eighteenth year of age and "
juvenile in conflict with law" means a
juvenile
who
is
alleged
to
have
committed an offence and has not
completed eighteenth year of age as on
the date of commission of such offence.

## Text

26 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2013

10. Hon'ble Apex Court in Umedbhai
Jadavbhai v. The State of Gujarat (1978)
1 SCC 228, observed as under:-

" In an appeal against acquittal, the
High Court would not ordinarily interfere
with the Trial Court's conclusion unless
there are compelling reasons to do so inter
alia on account of manifest erros of law or
of fact resulting in miscarriage of justice."

11. And Hon'ble Apex Court in
Ghurey Lal v. State of U.P. (2008) 10
SCC 450, summarized the legal position as
follows in para 69:

"69. The following principles emerges
from the cases above:

1. The appellate court may review the
evidence in appeals against acuqittal under
Sections 378 and 386 of the Criminal
Procedure Code, 1973. Its power of
reviewing evidence is wide and the
appellate court can reappreciate the entire
evidence on record. It can review the trial
court's conclusion with respect to both facts
and law.

2. The accused is presumed innocent
until proven guilty. The accused possessed
this presumption when he was before the
trial court. The trial court's acquittal
bolsters the presumption that he is innocent.

3. Due or proper weight and
consideration must be given to the trial
court's decision. This is especially true
when a witness' credibility is at issue. It is
not enough for the High Court to take a
different view of the evidence. There must
also be substantial and compelling reasons
for holding that the trial court was wrong.

12. It is clear from the above, that in
appeal against acquittal the trial court's
finding can only be interfered and reversed
on compelling reasons and when conclusion
with regard to the fact is palpably wrong
and the decision was based on erroneous
view of law and judgment is likely to result
grave miscarriage of justice.

13. From the above discussion, it is
clear that in the present case no such
circumstances
are
there
to
support
prosecution version and from the evidence
on record, there is nothing which supports
his version for setting aside the order of
acquittal. I find no force in present appeal
and the present appeal is liable to be
dismissed. Accordingly, this appeal is
dismissed.
---------
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.01.2013

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE V.P.PATHAK, J

Criminal Revision No. - 789 of 2007

Iqbal

 ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P.

 ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Gajraj Singh Pal
Sri G.R.S. Prasad
Sri Preet Pal Singh Rathore

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.G.A.

Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of
Children) Act 2000 Section 2 (k) and
2(l)-word "Juvenile" explained who has
not obtained 18 year age-incidence took
place on 19.05.1997-C.M.O. Opinioned
18.12.1997
as seventeen year
ageadmittedly when the amended provision
1 All] Iqbal V. State of U.P
27
enforced-revisionist
being
seventeen
years
age
falls
within
Juvenile-non
consideration of this aspect-held-not
proper-order quashed-direction for fresh
consideration remain

Held: Para 15

While applying the ratio of the aforesaid
verdicts of Hon'ble Apex Court referred
to above, in the present matter, it is
apparent
that
the
incident
is
of
19.5.1997
and
according
to
earlier
opinion of the Chief Medical Officer
which was given on 18.12.1997, the age
of the revisionist was opined to be about
17 years. Hence it is clear that at the
time of incident, the revisionist was
below
18
years.
According
to
the
amended
Act
and
in
view
of
the
aforesaid
verdicts,
the
applicant
is
entitled to the benefit of the age of
juvenility given in the new Act as in view
of Sections 2(k) and 2(l) " juvenile" or "
child" means a person who has not
completed eighteenth year of age and "
juvenile in conflict with law" means a
juvenile
who
is
alleged
to
have
committed an offence and has not
completed eighteenth year of age as on
the date of commission of such offence.

(Delivered by Hon'ble V.P.Pathak, J)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
revisionist as well as learned AGA.

2. Present revision has been preferred
against the order dated 9/2/2007 passed by
the Special Judge, (E.C.Act), Badaun in ST
No.1132/1997, under Section 302 IPC, PS
Kotwali, District Badaun by which the
application 60 Kha moved by the
revisionist for declaring him juvenile has
been rejected.

3. The brief facts of the case are that
on 19.5.97, an FIR has been got lodged by
one Ishrat Ulla Khan @ Mintu against the
revisionist Iqbal about the incident of the
same day, which was registered as Case
Crime No.316/1997, under Section 302
IPC, PS Kotwali, District Badaun. After
investigation,
the
charge
sheet
was
submitted against the revisionist and
thereafter trial of ST No.1132/1997 started
and was proceeding against him before the
court of Special Judge, ( E.C.Act)/Addl.
Sessions Judge, Badaun. During the
pendency of the trial, an application 5 Kha
was moved on behalf of the revisionist for
declaring him juvenile on account of the
fact that at the time of the incident, he was
about 14 years of age. On the said
application a report was called for from the
Chief Medical Officer concerned. The
CMO submitted his report on 18.12.1997
in which it was opined that the revisionist
was about 17 years of age. After the said
report of the CMO, learned trial court
considered the matter of juvenility of the
revisionist and rejected the said application
5 Kha moved by him on 23.12.1997 on the
ground that the date of occurrence was
19.5.1997 and the report of the CMO was
dated 18.12.1997 in which the age of the
revisionist was opined to be about 17
years, hence he was not below 16 years of
age.

4. It appears that in the meantime the
juvenile Justice ( Care and Protection of
Children) Act,2000, hereinafter referred to
as Act of 2000, was introduced by which
the earlier Juvenile Justice Act,1986 was
repealed. The Act of 2000 was also
amended by the Juvenile Justice ( Care and
Protection of Children) Amendment Act,
2006, hereinafter referred to as new Act,
and
several
provisions
have
been
introduced. According to the said new Act,
the definitions of the words " juvenile or
child" and " juvenile in conflict with law"
28 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2013
are defined in Sections 2(k) and 2(l), which
reads as under:-

"2(k) "juvenile" or "child" means a
person who has not completed eighteenth
year of age;

(l) "juvenile in conflict with law"
means a juvenile who is alleged to have
committed an offence and has not
completed eighteenth year of age as on the
date of commission of such offence.

5. After the new Act came into effect,
the revisionist moved an application dated
19.12.2006 before the trial court to declare
him juvenile on the ground that the date of
birth of the elder sister of the revisionist
Sugufta was 7.3.1982 from the school
certificate and the applicant was one and
half year young,.hence at the time of
incident, he was aged below 14 years only.

6 The learned court below after
considering the said application has
rejected the same vide the order impugned
dated 9.2.2007 referred to above on the
ground that earlier the question of
juvenility had already been considered on
the application moved by the revisionist in
that regard and the same was rejected on
23.12.1997. While rejecting the said
application, it was observed that there was
no change of circumstance as the date of
incident as well as the report of the Chief
Medical Officer was the same. Hence there
was no new ground.

7. Learned counsel for the revisionist
has mainly contended that subsequently
the report of the Chief Medical Officer was
again called for and the Chief Medical
Officer gave his report on 9.5.2012 in
which the age of the revisionist has been
opined to be 23 years and according to his
birth certificate issued from Nagar Palika
Parishad, Badaun, the date of birth of the
revisionist is shown to be 18.09.1983.
Hence considering from the date of
incident i.e. 19.5.1997, the applicant's age
would be below 15 years. It is also
submitted that even if the earlier report of
the
Chief
Medical
Officer
dated
18.12.1997 in which the age of the
revisionist is opined to be about 17 years is
taken into consideration, then also in view
of amended Act, the applicant would be
juvenile at the time of incident.

8. He placed reliance upon the two
verdicts of the Hon'ble Apex Court given
in Daya Nand Vs. State of Haryana[
2011(73) ACC 971] and Amit Singh Vs.
State of Mahatrshtra [2011 (74) ACC
887.

9. I have considered the said
arguments and perused the verdicts of
Hon'ble Apex Court as well as the relevant
provisions of the Act as amended by Act
No.33 of 2006 and the Rules framed
thereunder, along with all materials
available on record.

10. Now coming to consider the
verdict of Hon'ble Apex Court in Daya
Nand Vs. State of Harnaya ( supra) the
Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraph 10 has
been pleased to hold as follows:-

" In the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, a
'juvenile' was defined under Section 2(h) to
mean a boy who has not attained the age of
16 years or a girl who has not attained the
age of 18 years."

11. The Hon'ble Apex Court in para
11 has further held as follows:-
1 All] Iqbal V. State of U.P
29

" The Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 was
replaced by the Juvenile Justice ( Care and
Protection of Children Act), 2000 that
came into force on April 1,2001. The 2000
Act defined ' juvenile or child' in Section
2(k) to mean a person who has not
completed eighteenth years of age. Section
69 of 2000 Act repealed the Juvenile
Justice Act, 1986.The 2000 Act, in Section
20 also contained a provision in regard to
cases that were pending when it came into
force and in which the accused at the time
of commission of offence was below 18
years of age but above sixteen years of age
( and hence, not a juvenile under the 1986
Act) and consequently who was being tried
not before a juvenile Court but a regular
Court. Section 20 ( prior to its amendment
in 2006) provided as follows:-

" 20. Special provision in respect of
pending cases- Notwithstanding anything
contained in this Act, all proceedings in
respect of a juvenile pending in any Court
in any area on the date on which this Act
comes into force in that area, shall be
continued in that Court as if this Act had
not been passed and if the Court finds that
the juvenile has committed an offence, it
shall record such finding and instead of
passing any sentence in respect of the
juvenile, forward the juvenile to the Board
which shall pass orders in respect of that
juvenile in accordance with the provisions
of this Act as if it had been satisfied on
inquiry under this Act that a juvenile has
committed the offence."

12. The Hon'ble Apex Court has
further held in para 12 as follows:-

"The above quoted provision came up
for consideration before a Constitution
Bench of this Court in Pratap Singh Vs.
State of Jharkhand and another 2005(28)
AIC 640(SC). In Pratap Singh, this Court
held that Section 20 of the 2000 Act would
apply only to cases in which the accused
was below 18 years of age on April
1,2001, the date on which the 2000 Act
came into force but it would have no
application in case the accused had crossed
the age of 18 years on the date of coming
into force of the 2000 Act."

13. The Hon'ble Apex Court in para
13 has further made the following
observations:-

" After this Court's decision in Pratap
Singh ( and presumably as a result of that
decision) a number of amendments of a
very basic nature were introduced in the
2000 Act w.e.f August 22,2006 by Act 33
of
2006.
Some
of
the
provisions
incorporated in the 2000 Act by the 2006
amendment in so far as relevant for the
present are reproduced below:-

" 1 (4) Notwithstanding anything
contained in any other law for the time
being in force, the provisions of this Act
shall apply to all cases involving detention,
prosecution,
penalty
or
sentence
of
imprisonment of juveniles in conflict with
law under any such law.

2 (1)"juvenile in conflict with law"
means a juvenile who is alleged to have
committed an offence and has not
completed eighteenth years of age as on
the date of commission of such offence;

7-A. 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 enquiry,
30 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2013
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 recognized 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."

"The effect of the amendments in the
2000 Act were considered by this Court in
Hari Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan and
another 2010(86) AIC 97 (SC). In Hari
Ram, this Court held that the Constitution
Bench decision in Pratap Singh's case was
no longer relevant since it was rendered
under the unamended Act. In Hari Ram
this Court held and observed as follows:-

"59. The law as now crystallized on a
conjoint reading of Sections 2(k), 2(l),7A,20 and 49, read with Rules 12 and 98,
places beyond all doubt that all persons
who were below the age of 18 years on the
date of commission of the offence even
prior to 1.4.2001, would be treated as
juveniles, even if the claim of juvenility
was raised after they had attained the age
of 18 years on or before the date of
commencement of the Act and were
undergoing
sentence
upon
being
convicted."

14. In para 68, Hon'ble Apex Court
has further held as follows:-

" Accordingly, a juvenile who had not
completed eighteenth year on the date of
commission of the offence was also
entitled to the benefits of the Juvenile
Justice Act,2000, as if the provisions of
Section 2(k) had always been in existence
even during the operation of the 1986 Act."

Now coming to consider the another
verdict given by the Hon'ble Apex Court in
Amit Singh Vs. State of Maharashtra[
2011 (74) ACC 887, the same principle has
been followed and it has been held in para
10 as follows:-

" It is clear from the above provisions,
namely, Section 7-A, the claim of
juvenility to be raised before any Court at
any stage, even after final disposal of the
case and sets out the procedure which the
Court is required to adopt, when such
claim of juvenility is raised. Apart from the
aforesaid provisions of the Act as
amended, and the Juvenile Justice ( Care
and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007,(
in short ' the rules'), Rule 98, in particular,
has to be read along with Section 20 of the
Act as amended by the Amendment
Act,2006 which provides that even after
disposal of cases of juveniles in conflict
with law, the State Government or the
Board could , either suo motu or on an
application made for the purpose, review
the case of juvenile, determine the
juveniltity and pass an appropriate order
under Section 64 of the Act for immediate
release of the juvenile whose period of
detention had exceeded the maximum
1 All] Imaduddeen & others V. Najib Ullah and others
31
period provided in Section 15 of the Act i
.e 3 years. All the above relevant
provisions,
including
the
amended
provisions of the Act and the Rules have
been elaborately considered by this Court
in Hari Ram ( supra)"

15. While applying the ratio of the
aforesaid verdicts of Hon'ble Apex Court
referred to above, in the present matter, it
is apparent that the incident is of 19.5.1997
and according to earlier opinion of the
Chief Medical Officer which was given on
18.12.1997, the age of the revisionist was
opined to be about 17 years. Hence it is
clear that at the time of incident, the
revisionist was below 18 years. According
to the amended Act and in view of the
aforesaid verdicts, the applicant is entitled
to the benefit of the age of juvenility given
in the new Act as in view of Sections 2(k)
and 2(l) " juvenile" or " child" means a
person who has not completed eighteenth
year of age and " juvenile in conflict with
law" means a juvenile who is alleged to
have committed an offence and has not
completed eighteenth year of age as on the
date of commission of such offence.

16. The learned court below should
have considered the application of the
revisionist for declaring him juvenile in its
proper perspective in accordance with the
provisions of the amended Act but instead
vide the impugned order dated 9.2.2007, it
rejected the same only on the basis that his
earlier application had already been
rejected on 23.12.1997. Having not done
so, the order impugned passed by the
learned court below is erroneous and is not
sustainable in the eye of law.

17. In view of the aforesaid
considerations, this revision is allowed.
The impugned order dated 9.2.2007 is
hereby set aside and the matter is
remanded back to the learned trial court to
decide the matter of juvenility of the
revisionist afresh in accordance with law,
in the light of the observations made above
and
thereafter
proceed
further
in
accordance with law.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 18.12.2012

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DEVENDRA KUMAR
UPADHYAYA, J.

MISC. SINGLE No. - 925 of 1995

Imaduddeen & others
 ...Petitioner
Versus
Najib Ullah and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Shafiq Mirza

Counsel for the Respondents:
C S C.
Sri Mohd Arif Khan
Sri Perwaiz Wahab Khan
Sri Syed Wajid Irfan

Civil Procedure Code Order 41 Rule 27Additional evidence at appellate stageon ground certain document amounts to
admission on part of respondent-and
also could enable to pronounce the
judgement by arriving at just decisionrejected by the appellate court without
advertising the above fact-held finding
by the court below wholly anonymousvitiated.

Held: Para-18

In view of what has been held by Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of K. R. Mohan
Reddy (supra), it is concluded that the
submission made by the learned counsel
for the petitioners carries weight. As
discussed above, though the application