# Upendra Nath Chaubey Revisionist v. State of U.P. & Anr. Opp. Parties 18 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

- **Citation:** (2021) 4 ILRA 17
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-03-25
- **Case number:** Criminal Revision No. 1140 of 2016
- **Bench:** Gautam Chowdhary
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/upendra-nath-chaubey-revisionist-v-state-of-u-p-anr-opp-parties-18-indian-law-46968
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

A.G.A., Sri Manoj Yadav

Applicant claim of minor at the time of
commission of incident-could not be place
before the Court-but claimed after 20
years-claim rejected by court belowrevision-if
accused
was
juvenile-even
when maintaining conviction-the matter
shall be send to the Juvenile Board.

Revision allowed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:-

## Text

4 All. Upendra Nath Chaubey Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
17

Question No. (v)

A. A person not named in the FIR or
a person though named in the FIR but has not
been charge-sheeted or a person who has been
discharged can be summoned under Section
319 Cr.P.C. provided from the evidence it
appears that such person can be tried along
with the accused already facing trial. However,
insofar as an accused who has been discharged
is concerned the requirement of Sections 300
and 398 Cr.P.C. has to be complied with before
he can be summoned afresh".

12. I have very carefully examined the
submissions advanced by the learned counsel
for the parties and gone through the record.
After examining the materials available on
record, I find that no case is made out for
interference by this Court, while exercising
revisional jurisdiction.

13. Counsel for the revisionist has not
been able to point out any such illegality or
impropriety or incorrectness in the impugned
order which may persuade this Court to
interfere in the same. There is also no abuse
of court's process perceptible in the same
which appears to have been passed after due
application of judicial mind. All the facts and
circumstances of the case have been
appreciated in right perspective and even the
law point on the issue has been duly
discussed. It is true that summoning of an
accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. cannot be
resorted to in a cavalier or casual manner.
The standard of sufficiency of evidence
which may justify the summoning of an
additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C.
is on much higher footing than the
sufficiency of evidence which may persuade
the court to summon an accused under
Section 204 of Cr.P.C. but it does not go to
mean that the standard of sufficiency of
evidence in order to justify the summoning of
an additional accused under Section 319
Cr.P.C. should be of the same level which is
required to be applied at the time of final
adjudication on the point of guilt and innocence
of an accused. The ratio and obiter as laid down
by the Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of Hardeep Singh v. State of
Punjab and others, (2014) 3 SCC 92, does not
appear to have been ignored in this case.

14. The aforesaid judgment in fact lay
down very clearly that power under Section
319 Cr.P.C. can be exercised by Court
against a person not named in First
Information Report or no charge sheet is filed
by police against him and the accused can be
summoned only on the basis of examinationin-chief of witness and need not wait for
cross-examination etc. With regard to degree
of satisfaction of Court for summoning the
accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C., Court has
said that test are same as applicable for
framing charge.

15. In view of the above conspectus, I
find no merits in the instant revision. There is
no illegality or perversity in the impugned
order in question which is hereby affirmed
and the instant revision is dismissed.
----------
(2021)04ILR A17
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 25.03.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE GAUTAM CHOWDHARY, J.

Criminal Revision No. 1140 of 2016

Upendra Nath Chaubey ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opp. Parties
18 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sri Lok Nath Shukla

Counsel for the Opp. Parties:
A.G.A., Sri Manoj Yadav

Applicant claim of minor at the time of
commission of incident-could not be place
before the Court-but claimed after 20
years-claim rejected by court belowrevision-if
accused
was
juvenile-even
when maintaining conviction-the matter
shall be send to the Juvenile Board.

Revision allowed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:-

1. Satya Deo @ Bhoorey Vs St. of U.P. 2020 10
SCC (Cri) 61

2. Amit Singh Vs St.of Mah.& anr. 011 0
Supreme(SC) 740

(Delivered by Hon'ble Gautam Chowdhary, J.)

1& fuxjkuhdrkZ ds fo}ku vf/koDrk Jh yksd
ukFk 'kqDyk] foi{kh la0 2 ds fo}ku vf/koDrk Jh
eukst ;kno ,oa fo}ku vij 'kkldh; vf/koDrk
mifLFkr gSaA

2& fuxjkuhdrkZ ds fo}ku vf/koDrk us
izR;qRrj'kiFki= nkf[ky fd;k] bls i=koyh ij j[kk
tk;A

3& fuxjkuhdrkZ dh vksj ls ;g nkf.Md
fuxjkuh] l= ijh{k.k la0 13 lu 2011] jkT; cuke
yYyu pkScs vkfn esa vij l= U;k;k/kh'k] dksVZ la0 1]
cfy;k }kjk ikfjr vkns'k fn0 18&5&2015 dks vikLr
djus gsrq nk;j dh x;h gS] ftlds }kjk
vfHk;qDr@fuxjkuhdrkZ misUnzukFk pkScs }kjk mls
ukckfyx ?kksf"kr djus gsrq fn;k x;k izkFkZuk i= la0
[k&56 ,oa [k&91 fujLr fd;k x;k gSA

4& fuxjkuhdrkZ ds fo}ku vf/koDrk dk dFku
gS fd izLrqr izdj.k ls lacaf/kr ?kVuk fn0
28&1&1996 bZ0 dh gS] ml le; fuxjkuhdrkZ dh
mez 11 o"kZ Fkh vkSj og ukckfyx Fkk rFkk ml le;
voj U;k;ky; ds vf/koDrk }kjk fuxjkuhdrkZ dks
ukckfyx gksus ds rF; dks Dyse ugha fd;k tk ldk]
ckn
esa
voj
U;k;ky;
ds
le{k
vfHk;qDr@fuxjkuhdrkZ misUnzukFk pkScs dh vksj ls
izkFkZuk i= [k&56 ,oa [k&91 izLrqr djds ;g vuqjks/k
fd;k x;k fd ?kVuk ds le; mldh mez 11 o"kZ Fkh
vkSj og ukckfyx Fkk] ,slh fLFkfr esa mldh i=koyh
vyx djds tqoukbZy dksVZ Hkst fn;k tk;A vius
dFku ds leFkZu esa vfHk;qDr@fuxjkuhdrkZ dh vksj ls
ljLorh f'k'kq efUnj eB ukxk th cfy;k dh ekdZ
'khV rFkk izek.k i= izLrqr fd;k x;k] ftlesa mldh
tUe frfFk 8&11&1985 vafdr gSA Vh0lh0 dh
lR;kfir izfrfyfi Hkh nkf[ky dh x;h] ftlesa d{kk 2
esa lu 1989 esa ukxk th ljLorh f'k'kq efUnj esa
nkf[kyk fy;k tkuk dgk x;k gSA lh0MCyw0&1 ds :i
esa xksikyujk;u vkpk;Z ukxk th ljLorh f'k'kq efUnj
eB ukxk th izLrqr gq, gSa] ftUgksaus vius c;ku esa
dgk gS fd fn0 18&7&89 dks misUnzukFk pkScs us
d{kk&2 esa lh/ks nkf[kyk fy;k Fkk] viuh ftjg esa
dgk gS fd tUe frfFk ds ckjs esa dksbZ izek.k i= ugha
fn;k Fkk] mlds firk }kjk tqckuh gh tUe frfFk
crk;h x;h FkhA gkbZ Ldwy dh vad rkfydk Hkh izLrqr
dh x;h] ftlesa vfHk;qDr dks 1999 esa gkbZ Ldwy ikl
gksuk fn[kk;k x;k gS] bl izdkj ?kVuk ds le; og
11 o"kZ dk FkkA vfHk;qDr ds mDr vkosnu i= ij
fo}ku vij l= U;k;k/kh'k] dksVZ la0 1] cfy;k }kjk
;g vfHker O;Dr fd;k x;k fd ** ?kVuk ds ckn
vFkkZr 1996 esa gh vfHk;qDr us tqfouk;y gksus dk
vk/kkj vius fjek.M ds le; ;k tekur ds le; D;ksa
ugha fy ;k x;k** vkxs ;g Hkh vfHker O;Dr fd;k
x;k fd **?kVuk ds 20 o"kZ ckn lUnsgkLin Ldwyh
izek.k i= ds vk/kkj ij ;g dguk fd vfHk;qDr
ukckfyx gS] lehphu izrhr ugha gksrkA vfHk;qDr dh
rjQ ls bl fcUnq dk lUrks"ktud mRrj nsuk pkfg,
Fkk fd vfHk;qDr ds ekrk firk us] o"kZ 1996 esa ;fn
vfHk;qDr 11 o"kZ dk Fkk rks mUgksaus ;g rF; lEcfU/kr
U;k;ky; ds le{k D;ksa ugha mBk;k FkkA vfHk;kstu ds
rdZ esa cy izrhr gksrk gS fd fcuk fdlh vk/kkj ds
e; ekfQ;k rjhds ls izkbejh Ldwy esa nkf[kyk ds
le; vfHk;qDr dh mez fy[kk nh x;h Fkh ftlds ihNs
dksbZ tUe frfFk ls lEcfU/kr izek.k i= ugha Fkk] ,slh
fLFkfr esa fcuk fdlh izek.k i= ds fy[kk;h x;h
tUefrfFk vius vki esa lUnsgkLin izrhr gksrk gSA**
fo}ku voj U;k;ky; }kjk vkxs ;g Hkh vfHker O;Dr
fd;k x;k gS fd **vfHk;kstu ds dbZ lk{kh ijhf{kr gks
pqds gSa fQj Hkh fopkj.k dks foyEc djus dh fu;r ls
brus foyEc ls lksp le>dj tqoukbZy dh Iyh yh
x;h gS] ftldk vc bl Lrj ij dksbZ vkSfpR; ugha gS]
fQygky esjh jk; esa vfHk;qDr dk izkFkZuk i= [k&91
Lohdkj fd;s tkus ;ksX; ugha gS** bl izdkj fo}ku
4 All. Upendra Nath Chaubey Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
19
voj U;k;ky; }kjk vfHk;qDr ds mijksDr izkFkZuk i=
fujLr dj fn, x,A

5& fuxjkuhdrkZ ds fo}ku vf/koDrk us rdZ
izLrqr fd;k fd eku~uh; mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk vusd
fu.kZ;ksa esa ;g fl)kUr izfrikfnr fd;k x;k gS fd
vfHk;qDr fdlh Hkh Lrj ij tqfouk;y gksus dk Dyse
dj ldrk gSA mls tc Hkh tqfouk;y gksus ds rF;
dks Dyse djus dh ckr laKku esa vk;h rc mlus
tqfouk;y gksus dk Dyse fd;k] fdUrq fo}ku voj
U;k;ky; }kjk mls vius mijksDr of.kZr vfHker ds
vk/kkj ij fujLr dj fn;k x;k rFkk mUgksausbl izdkj
fo}ku voj U;k;ky; }kjk eku~uh; mPpre U;k;ky;
}kjk izfrikfnr fl)kUrksa ij fopkj fd, fcuk]
vfHk;qDr@fuxjkuhdrkZ dk izkFkZuk i= fujLr djus esa
=qfV dh x;h gS] blfy, iz'uxr vkns'k vikLr fd,
tkus ;ksX; gSA bl izdkj fo}ku vij l= U;k;k/kh'k
}kjk ikfjr iz'uxr vkns'k =qfViw.kZ gS ,oa vikLr fd,
tkus ;ksX; gSA vius rdZ ds leFkZu esa mUgksaus
U;k;ky; dk /;ku Satya Deo @ Bhoorey Vs.
State of Uttar Pradesh 2020 10 SCC
(Cri) 61, Amit Singh Vs. State of
Maharashtra & Anr. 011 0 Supreme(SC)
740 esa izfrikfnr fl)kUrksa dh vksj vkd`"V fd;kA

6& foi{kh la0 2 ds fo}ku vf/koDrk ,oa
fo}ku vij 'kkldh; vf/koDrk us fuxjkuhdrkZ ds
rdksZ dk fojks/k fd;k rFkk dgk fd voj U;k;ky;
}kjk mHk; i{k dks lqudj rFkk i=koyh ij miyC/k
lk{; dk ifj'khyu djus ds i'pkr iz'uxr vkns'k
ikfjr fd;k gS] ftlesa dksbZ =qfV ugha gS] blfy, ;g
nkf.Md fuxjkuh fujLr dj nh tk;A

7& eSaus nksuksa i{kksa ds fo}ku vf/koDrkvksa ds
rdksZ ij fopkj fd;k rFkk iz'uxr vkns'k ,oa i=koyh
ij miyC/k lk{; dk ifj'khyu fd;kA

8& ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk Satya
Deo @ Bhoorey Vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh 2020 10 SCC (Cri) 61 esa mfYyf[kr
rF; fuEuor~ gSa %&

"Thus, in respect of pending
cases,
Section
20
authoritatively
commands that the court must at any
stage, even post the judgment by the trial
court when the matter is pending in
appeal, revision or otherwise, consider
and
decide
upon
the
question
of
juvenility. Juvenility is determined by the
age on the date of commission of the
offence. The factum that the juvenile was
an adult on the date of enforcement of the
2000 Act or subsequently had attained
adulthood would not matter. If the
accused was juvenile, the court would,
even when maintaining conviction, send
the case to the Board to issue direction
and order in accordance with the
provisions of the 2000 Act."

9& blh izdkj Amit Singh Vs. State
of
Maharashtra
&
Anr.
011
0
Supreme(SC) 740 esa mfYyf[kr rF; fuEuor~
gSa %&

"After the judgment of the
Constitution Bench in Pratap Singh
(supra), this Court in the case of Hari
Ram
(supra)
considered
the
above
question of law in the light of Amendment
Act 33 of 2006 in the provisions of the
Act which substituted Section 2(l) to
define a "juvenile in conflict with law" as
a "juvenile who is alleged to have
committed an offence and has not
completed 18 years of age as on the date
of commission of such offence". By way
of Amendment Act 33/2006, Section 7A
was inserted which reads as follows:-

"7A. 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 inquiry, take such evidence as may
be necessary (but not an affidavit) so as to
determine the age of such person, and shall
20 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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. "

It
is
clear
from
the
above
provision, namely, Section 7A 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 juvenility 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 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). "

10& fuxjkuhdrkZ ds fo}ku vf/koDrk ds rdksZ
ds ifjizs{; esa ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk mijksDr
fu.kZ;ksa esa izfrikfnr fl)kUrksa ds n`f"Vxr] i=koyh ij
myC/k lk{; dks ns[krs gq, fo+}ku vij l= U;k;k/kh'k]
dksVZ la0&1] cfy;k }kjk ikfjr iz'uxr vkns'k fn0
18&5&2015 =qfViw.kZ gksuk izrhr gksrk gSA

11& vr% ;g nkf.Md fuxjkuh Lohdkj dh
tkrh gS rFkk fo}ku vij l= U;k;k/kh'k] dksVZ la0 1]
cfy;k }kjk mijksDr okn esa ikfjr iz'uxr vkns'k fn0
18&5&2015 vikLr fd;k tkrk gS] ,oa izdj.k dks
muds le{k bl funsZ'k ds lkFk izfrizsf"kr fd;k tkrk
gS fd bl vkns'k esa mfYyf[kr fdlh Hkh fVIi.kh ds
xq.k&nks"k ls izHkkfor gq, fcuk] i{kdkjksa dks lquokbZ dk
leqfpr volj nsrs gq, ,oa i=koyh dk lE;d :is.k
voyksdu djus ds mijkUr mfpr vkns'k ikfjr fd;k
tk;A

12& dk;kZy; dks funsZ'k fn;k tkrk gS fd bl
vkns'k dh ,d izfrfyfi lacaf/kr U;k;ky; dks vfoyEc
Hkstuk lqfuf'pr djsA
----------
(2021)04ILR A20
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 03.03.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SURESH KUMAR GUPTA, J.

Criminal Revision No. 2541 of 2019

Ankur ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opp. Parties

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sri Rajiv Lochan Shukla, Sri J.B. Singh

Counsel for the Opp. Party:
A.G.A., Sri Nipun Singh

Criminal
Law
-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure, 1973- Section 125 -. Challenged
by
husband-impugned
order
directing