# Shivam Maurya v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2020) 6 ILRA 821
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2020-04-10
- **Case number:** Special Appeal No. 1136 of 2018
- **Bench:** Govind Mathur, Samit Gopal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/shivam-maurya-v-state-of-u-p-ors-45801
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

A. Civil Law - Juvenile Justice (Care and
Protection of Children) Act, 2000 - Object
- The Act is a beneficial legislation. The
principles of such beneficial legislation are to
be
applied
only
for
the
purpose
of
interpretation of this statute - It does not
envisage incarceration of a juvenile which
clearly shows that the intention and object
was not to shut the doors of a disciplined and
decent civilised life. It provides him an
opportunity to mend his life for the future.
(Para 14)

B.Civil Law - Juvenile Justice (Care and
Protection of Children) Act, 2000 -
Section 2(k), 2(l) & 19 - Juvenile in conflict
with Law - Effect of conviction under the Act -
Section 19 has been incorporated in order to
give a juvenile an opportunity to lead his life
with no stigma and to wipe out the
circumstances of his past - It thus provides
that
a
juvenile
shall
not
suffer
any
disqualification attaching to conviction of an
offence under such Act - It protects a juvenile
and any stigma attached to his conviction is
also removed. (Para 10 and 14)

C. Civil Law - Juvenile Justice (Care and
Protection of Children) Act, 2000 -
Concealment of pendency of criminal case -
Cancellation of candidature - The concealment
of the pendency of criminal case against the
appellant-petitioner was of no consequence -
As per the requirement of law a conviction in
an offence will not be treated
as a
disqualification for a juvenile - The intention
of the legislature is clear that in so far as
juveniles are concerned their criminal records
is not to stand in their way in their lives -
Held, the cancellation of the candidature of
the appellant-petitioner is bad. The authority
concerned failed to appreciate the fact that
the appellant-petitioner was entitled to benefit
of the provisions of Act of 2000.

Special Appeal allowed; Writ Petition
allowed (E-1)

## Text

6 All. Shivam Maurya Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 821
in the case of the Managing Committee,
Dayanand Inter College, Gorakhpur
(supra). However, to meet the ends of
justice, it is directed that the petitioners/
Competent Authority shall conclude the
disciplinary
proceedings
against
the
respondent No.4, in accordance with law,
expeditiously
preferably
within
two
months if not completed so far, keeping in
mind
the
time
frame
provided
in
Regulation 40.

23. With the aforesaid directions,
the writ petition is disposed off.
----------
(2020)06ILR A821
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.04.2020

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE GOVIND MATHUR, J.
THE HON'BLE SAMIT GOPAL, J.

Special Appeal No. 1136 of 2018

Shivam Maurya ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Ashok Khare, Sri Siddharth Khare

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Civil Law - Juvenile Justice (Care and
Protection of Children) Act, 2000 - Object
- The Act is a beneficial legislation. The
principles of such beneficial legislation are to
be
applied
only
for
the
purpose
of
interpretation of this statute - It does not
envisage incarceration of a juvenile which
clearly shows that the intention and object
was not to shut the doors of a disciplined and
decent civilised life. It provides him an
opportunity to mend his life for the future.
(Para 14)

B.Civil Law - Juvenile Justice (Care and
Protection of Children) Act, 2000 -
Section 2(k), 2(l) & 19 - Juvenile in conflict
with Law - Effect of conviction under the Act -
Section 19 has been incorporated in order to
give a juvenile an opportunity to lead his life
with no stigma and to wipe out the
circumstances of his past - It thus provides
that
a
juvenile
shall
not
suffer
any
disqualification attaching to conviction of an
offence under such Act - It protects a juvenile
and any stigma attached to his conviction is
also removed. (Para 10 and 14)

C. Civil Law - Juvenile Justice (Care and
Protection of Children) Act, 2000 -
Concealment of pendency of criminal case -
Cancellation of candidature - The concealment
of the pendency of criminal case against the
appellant-petitioner was of no consequence -
As per the requirement of law a conviction in
an offence will not be treated
as a
disqualification for a juvenile - The intention
of the legislature is clear that in so far as
juveniles are concerned their criminal records
is not to stand in their way in their lives -
Held, the cancellation of the candidature of
the appellant-petitioner is bad. The authority
concerned failed to appreciate the fact that
the appellant-petitioner was entitled to benefit
of the provisions of Act of 2000.

Special Appeal allowed; Writ Petition
allowed (E-1)
(Delivered by Hon'ble Samit Gopal, J.)

Heard Sri Siddharth Khare, learned
counsel for the appellant and the learned
Standing
Counsel
and
perused
the
records.

2. The present appeal is directed
against the judgment dated 05.10.2018
passed in Writ A No. 21337 of 2018 by
which the learned Single Judge has
dismissed the said writ petition on the
ground that the petitioner therein cannot
be given benefit for suppression of an
822 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
information despite specific question in
the affidavit along with the application
form / verification form as to whether he
had been convicted by any court of law.
The said information as supplied by the
petitioner was found to be incorrect by
the authorities and as such the authorities
concerned
were
well
within
their
authority to cancel the candidature of the
petitioner. The facts of the present matter
are as follows:-

i. In the year 2015, the U.P.
Police Recruitment and Promotion
Board,
Lucknow
notified
an
appointment of police Constable and
Constable in PAC (Male) Direct
Recruitment, 2015.

ii. The appellant-petitioner
applied in the same and on the basis of
his academic qualifications he stood
selected.

iii. The petitioner as was
required to participate in a physical
efficiency
test
who
participated
therein on the scheduled date and time
and was declared qualified for the
same.

iv. The appellant-petitioner
was
allotted
district
Deoria
for
training. He was required to file a
declaration affidavit being a notarial
affidavit / verification form which was
filled
by
him
which
is
dated
30.05.2018.

v. The appellant-petitioner
vide communication dated 09.06.2018
issued
by
the
Superintendent
of
Police, Azamgarh was required to
participate in medical examination
which was scheduled on 17.06.2018
where
the
appellant-petitioner
participated and was declared fit and
thus
passed
the
said
medical
examination.

vi.
Vide
order
dated
04.09.2018 the candidature of the
appellant- petitioner was cancelled on
the ground of material concealment of
pendency of a criminal case against
him which was not disclosed in the
affidavit / verification form, which is
the impugned order in the writ petition
before the learned Single Judge.

3. A First Information Report was
lodged on 28.06.2013 being Case Crime
No. 173 of 2013 under Sections 147, 323,
308,
325,
504,
506
I.P.C.,
P.S.
Kundrapur, District Azamgarh in which
the appellant-petitioner was also named
as an accused. The appellant-petitioner as
was declared a juvenile, his case was
taken up by the Juvenile Justice Board,
Azamgarh
which
vide
order
dated
07.07.2018 convicted the appellant and
directed him to be kept under probation
for a period of one year along with fine
under Section 147 I.P.C. of Rs. 2000/-,
under Section 323 I.P.C. of Rs. 1000/-,
under Section 308 I.P.C. of Rs. 20,000/-,
under Section 325 I.P.C. Rs. 10,000/-,
under Section 504 I.P.C. of Rs. 1000/-
and under Section 506 I.P.C. of Rs.
2000/- to be paid by the custodian of the
appellant-petitioner
in
view
of
his
committing the offence. It was further
ordered that as per the provisions of
Section 357 Cr.P.C., 50 % of the fine as
realised shall be paid to the victim.

4. An order dated 04.09.2018 was
passed by the District Nodal Officer,
Recruitment Centre, Azamgarh cancelling
the candidature of the petitioner on the
6 All. Shivam Maurya Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 823
ground that he has filed a false affidavit /
self-disclosure letter in which in Para 2
pertaining
to
the
disclosure
of
involvement in a criminal case, the
candidate has disclosed as follows:-

(2) यह की िेरे तिरुद्ध कोई
आपरातधक िुकििा / िािला िेरी
जानकारी िें कभी पंजीकृि नहीं हुआ है
और
न
ही
कोई
पुतलस
तििेचना
(Investigation) लंतबि है |

The
said
information
is
incorrect as on verification it came to
light that a criminal case is registered
against him on which he has been
released on probation for one year along
with fine. The said information was
intentionally concealed and the affidavit
is based on false facts.

5. In the present case date of birth of
the appellant-petitioner is 05.02.1997.
The First Information Report was lodged
on 28.06.2013. The appellant-petitioner
was thus aged about 16 years (to be more
precise 16 years, 4 months & 23 days old)
at the time when the F.I.R was lodged.

6. An affidavit / declaration as given
by the appellant-petitioner states to be
disclosed in its column 2 that there is no
criminal case registered in the knowledge
of the declarant / deponent and there was
never any investigation pending. Further
in clause 5 of the same it was to be
declared that the declarant / deponent was
never challaned by the police in any
criminal matter. The candidature of the
appellant-petitioner was cancelled on the
ground that he had furnished a false
notary
affidavit
dated
30.05.2018
asserting wrong and incorrect facts
regarding the pendency of a criminal case
against him. The said information was
stated
to
have
been
concealed
intentionally and a false affidavit is said
to have been given.

7. The appellant-petitioner at the
time of lodging of the said F.I.R was a
juvenile. A juvenile has been defined in
Section 2 (k) of the Juvenile Justice (Care
and Protection of Children) Act, 2000.
The same is extracted herein below:-

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

8. Section 19 of the Act of 2000
reads as under:-

"19. Removal of disqualification
attaching
to
conviction:-
(1)
Notwithstanding anything contained in
any other law, a juvenile who has
committed an offence and has been dealt
with under the provisions of this Act shall
not
suffer
disqualification,
if
any,
attaching to a conviction of an offence
under such law.

(2) The Board shall make an
order directing that the relevant records
of such conviction shall be removed after
the expiry of the period of appeal or a
reasonable period prescribed under the
rules, as the case may be."

9. Since the appellant-petitioner was
under the age of 18 at the time of lodging
of the said F.I.R he had to be treated as a
juvenile in conflict with law. A "juvenile
in conflict with law" has also been
defined under Section 2 (l) of the Act of
2000. The same reads as under:-
824 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

"(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 f commission of such offence;"

10. Section 19 of the Act of 2000
has been incorporated in order to give a
juvenile an opportunity to lead his life
with no stigma and to wipe out the
circumstances of his past. It thus provides
that a juvenile shall not suffer any
disqualification attaching to conviction of
an offence under such Act. A "juvenile"
on the date when the alleged offence has
been committed is required to be dealt
with under the Juvenile Justice Board
(Care and Protection of Children) Act,
2000 which declares that all criminal
charges against individuals who are
described as "juvenile in conflict with
law" be decided by the authorities
constituted under the Act by the Juvenile
Justice Board. If a conviction is recorded
by the Juvenile Justice Board, Section 19
(1) of the Act of 2000 specifically
stipulates that juvenile shall not suffer any
disqualification attached to the conviction
of an offence under such law. Further
Section 19 (2) of the Act of 2000
contemplates that the Board must pass an
order directing all the relevant records of
such conviction to be removed after
expiry of the period of appeal or reasons
as prescribed under the rules as the case
may be.

11. At the present moment it will
not be out of place to mention that in the
present case the Juvenile Justice Board
while giving its judgment and order dated
07.07.2018 being
conscious
of
the
provision of Section 19 of the Act of 2000
directed that the records or papers will be
dealt with as per the provisions of Rule 99
of Juvenile Justice ( Care and Protection
of Children) Rules, 2007. The said Rule is
extracted herein below:-

"99. Disposal of records or
documents.-- The records or documents
in respect of a juvenile or a child or a
juvenile in conflict with law shall be kept
in a safe place for a period of seven years
and no
longer, and
thereafter
be
destroyed by the Officer-in-Charge or
Board or Committee, as the case may be."

12. Section 21 of the Act of 2000
prohibits publication of the name of the
"juvenile in conflict with law" with the
object to protect a juvenile from adverse
consequences
on
account
of
his
conviction for an offence committed as a
juvenile. The same reads as under:-

"21. Prohibition of publication
of name, etc., of juvenile involved in any
proceeding under the Act.-

(1) No report in any newspaper,
magazine, new-sheet or visual media of
any inquiry regarding a juvenile in
conflict with law under this Act shall
disclose the name, address or school or
any other particulars calculated to lead to
the identification of the juvenile nor shall
any picture of any such juvenile be
published:

Provided that for reasons to be
recorded in writing the authority holding
the inquiry may permit such disclosure, if
in its opinion such disclosure is in the
interest of the juvenile.

(2) Any person contravening the
provisions of sub-section (1) shall be
punishable with fine, which may extend to
one
thousand
rupees."
6 All. Union of India & Ors. Vs. Raj Bahadur Singh 825

13. The sensitivity in matters
relating to a juvenile or child or juvenile
in conflict with law was deep embedded
in the legislation as is apparent from
Chapter II of the Juvenile Justice (Care &
Protection of Children) Rules, 2007. Rule
3 therein gives in detail the fundamental
principles
to
be
followed
in
administration of the Rules.

14. The said Act is a beneficial
legislation.
The
principles
of
such
beneficial legislation are to be applied
only for the purpose of interpretation of
this statute. The concealment of the
pendency of criminal case against the
appellant-petitioner
was
of
no
consequence. As per the requirement of
law a conviction in an offence will not be
treated as a disqualification for a juvenile.
The records of the case pertaining to his
involvement in a criminal matter are to be
obliterated after a specified period of
time. The intention of the legislature is
clear that in so far as juveniles are
concerned their criminal records is not to
stand in their way in their lives. The
cancellation of the candidature of the
appellant-petitioner was thus bad. The
authority concerned failed to appreciate
the fact that the appellant-petitioner was
entitled to benefit of the provisions of Act
of
2000.
The
cancellation
of
the
candidature
of
the
petitioner
goes
contrary to the object sought to be
achieved by the Act of 2000. Section 19
of the Act of 2000 protects a juvenile and
any stigma attached to his conviction is
also removed. The Act of 2000 does not
envisage incarceration of a juvenile which
clearly shows that the intention and object
was not to shut the doors of a disciplined
and decent civilised life. It provides him
an opportunity to mend his life for the
future.

15. We thus hold that the authority
concerned fell in complete error in not
extending the benefit of Act of 2000 to
the appellant-petitioner particularly when
there are specific provisions provided
therein to take care of a juvenile being
implicated, tried and / or convicted in a
criminal matter. We thus extend the
benefit provided under Section 19 of the
Act of 2000 to the appellant-petitioner.

16. The judgment and order of the
learned Single Judge is set aside. The
Writ A No. 21337 of 2018 is allowed and
the order dated 04.09.2018 passed by the
District
Nodal
Officer,
Recruitment
Centre, Azamgarh is set aside. The
respondent no. 6 is directed to reinstate
the petitioner within a period of 30 days
from the date of production of a certified
copy of this order with all consequential
benefits except for back wages following
the principle of no work and no pay.
----------
(2020)06ILR A825
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 22.04.2020

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE BISWANATH SOMADDER, J.
THE HON'BLE DR. YOGENDRA KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA, J.

Special Appeal No. 1178 of 2019

Union Of India & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
Raj Bahadur Singh ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri Ashok Singh

Counsel for the Respondent:
Sri Divikar Rai Sharma, Sri Manphool
Singh, Sri Anil Kumar Bind, Sri Akhilesh
Singh