# Yusuf v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2023) 10 ILRA 88
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-10-19
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 829 of 2005
- **Bench:** Shamim Ahmed
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/yusuf-v-state-of-u-p-49544
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

Law
-
Narcotic
Drugs
and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 -
Sections 8/21, 50, 55, 57 - Criminal
Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 313 -
Non-Compliance
with
Mandatory
Provisions - Reliability of Police Witnesses
- Non-Production of Witnesses - Acquittal
-
The
appellant,
Yusuf,
challenged
the
conviction and five-year rigorous imprisonment
with a Rs.6,000 fine under Section 8/21 of the
NDPS Act, imposed by the Additional District &
Sessions
Judge,
Sultanpur,
on
18.01.2005/24.01.2005, for possessing 100
grams of morphine.

Held: (1) The appeal was allowed, and the
conviction and sentence were set aside,
acquitting the appellant. (2) The prosecution
failed to prove the case beyond reasonable
doubt due to non-compliance with mandatory
provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act, which
requires informing the accused of their right to
be searched before a Gazetted Officer or
Magistrate. (3) The prosecution relied solely on
the testimonies of PW-1 (Constable Ram Murti
Prajapati) and PW-2 (Station House Officer S.P.
Gupta), which were not wholly reliable, as other
patrolling party members (Sub Inspector Bhola
Prasad, Head Constable Shiv Dutt Singh,
Constables Shyam Shanker Saroj, Santosh
Kumar Singh, and Driver Rama Shanker Tiwari)
were not produced without explanation, creating
a serious lacuna. (4) The Station House Officer
(PW-2) failed to deposit the seized morphine in
the police station's Malkhana, keeping it in
personal custody without clarifying when it was
handed over, violating Section 55 of the NDPS
Act. (5) No written consent for the search was
produced, and no effort was made to conduct
the search before a Gazetted Officer or
Magistrate, contravening Vijaysinh Chandubha
Jadeja Vs St. of Gujarat and St. of Rajasthan Vs
Parmanand. (6) The absence of public witnesses
at the recovery site, a public place (Gulab Ganj
Crossing), and the failure to weigh the
contraband or take samples at the time of
recovery further weakened the prosecution
case. (7) The trial court did not adequately
evaluate
these
irregularities,
and
the
prosecution's evidence did not meet the
threshold of proof beyond reasonable doubt. (8)
The appellant's claim of false implication due to
non-payment to police was considered plausible
given the procedural lapses. (9) The court
canceled the appellant's personal and surety
bonds,
discharging
the
sureties.
10 All. Yusuf Vs. State of U.P.
89
Case Law Cited:

## Text

88 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

64. The appeal, so far as the
conviction and sentencing under Section
304 read with Section 34 IPC is concerned,
is dismissed and the conviction and
sentencing passed by the trial court is
upheld. It is also directed that the period of
incarceration of the surviving accused
appellant no.2, Darmesh Yadav would be
adjusted in accordance with law and rules.

65. Let a copy of this order be sent
forthwith alongwith the lower court record
to the court concerned for consignment and
compliance. It is also directed that
appellant no.2, Darmesh Yadav would
appear before the Special Judge (PC Act),
Lucknow by 09.10.2023 otherwise Special
Judge (PC Act), Lucknow would be under
obligation to issue process to arrest the
convict-appellant no.2, Darmesh Yadav and
send him jail to serve rest of the sentence.
----------
(2023) 10 ILRA 88
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 19.10.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHAMIM AHMED, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 829 of 2005

Yusuf ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellant:
Umesh Chandra Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondent:
Govt. Advocate

Criminal
Law
-
Narcotic
Drugs
and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 -
Sections 8/21, 50, 55, 57 - Criminal
Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 313 -
Non-Compliance
with
Mandatory
Provisions - Reliability of Police Witnesses
- Non-Production of Witnesses - Acquittal
-
The
appellant,
Yusuf,
challenged
the
conviction and five-year rigorous imprisonment
with a Rs.6,000 fine under Section 8/21 of the
NDPS Act, imposed by the Additional District &
Sessions
Judge,
Sultanpur,
on
18.01.2005/24.01.2005, for possessing 100
grams of morphine.

Held: (1) The appeal was allowed, and the
conviction and sentence were set aside,
acquitting the appellant. (2) The prosecution
failed to prove the case beyond reasonable
doubt due to non-compliance with mandatory
provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act, which
requires informing the accused of their right to
be searched before a Gazetted Officer or
Magistrate. (3) The prosecution relied solely on
the testimonies of PW-1 (Constable Ram Murti
Prajapati) and PW-2 (Station House Officer S.P.
Gupta), which were not wholly reliable, as other
patrolling party members (Sub Inspector Bhola
Prasad, Head Constable Shiv Dutt Singh,
Constables Shyam Shanker Saroj, Santosh
Kumar Singh, and Driver Rama Shanker Tiwari)
were not produced without explanation, creating
a serious lacuna. (4) The Station House Officer
(PW-2) failed to deposit the seized morphine in
the police station's Malkhana, keeping it in
personal custody without clarifying when it was
handed over, violating Section 55 of the NDPS
Act. (5) No written consent for the search was
produced, and no effort was made to conduct
the search before a Gazetted Officer or
Magistrate, contravening Vijaysinh Chandubha
Jadeja Vs St. of Gujarat and St. of Rajasthan Vs
Parmanand. (6) The absence of public witnesses
at the recovery site, a public place (Gulab Ganj
Crossing), and the failure to weigh the
contraband or take samples at the time of
recovery further weakened the prosecution
case. (7) The trial court did not adequately
evaluate
these
irregularities,
and
the
prosecution's evidence did not meet the
threshold of proof beyond reasonable doubt. (8)
The appellant's claim of false implication due to
non-payment to police was considered plausible
given the procedural lapses. (9) The court
canceled the appellant's personal and surety
bonds,
discharging
the
sureties.
10 All. Yusuf Vs. State of U.P.
89
Case Law Cited:

1. Vijaysinh Chandubha Jadeja Vs St. of Guj.,
2010 (2) EFR 755;

2. St. of Raj.Vs Parmanand, (2014) 2 SCC (Cri)
563.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed, J.)

1. This appeal has been preferred
against the judgment and order dated
18.01.2005 / 24.01.2005 passed by learned
Additional District & Sessions Judge
(F.T.C. - III), Court No.12, Sultanpur,
convicting the appellant in Criminal Case
No.8/2004, under Section 8/21 of N.D.P.S.
Act, Police Station Jagdishpur, District
Sultanpur and sentencing him for five years
rigorous imprisonment alongwith fine of
Rs.6,000/- under Section 8/21 of N.D.P.S.
Act.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the
prosecution case are that on 28.01.2004,
Station House Officer, S.P. Gupta, posted at
Police
Station
Jagdishpur,
District
Sultanpur, was on patrolling duty in search
of wanted criminal along with Sub
Inspector Bhola Prasad, Head Constable
Shiv Dutt Singh, Constable Ram Murti
Prajapati, Constable Shyam Shanker Saroj,
Constable Santosh Kumar Singh and
Constable Driver Rama Shanker Tiwari and
as the patrolling party reached Gulab Ganj
Crossing, they saw four to five persons
standing at west side of Jagdishpur Bus
Depot in suspicious condition and tried to
escape from there. The police party, on
sensing some doubt in view of their
conduct, apprehended and caught them on
spot. Upon interrogation, they confessed
that they were carrying morphine; they
were told that they had options either to get
them searched before Gazetted Police
Officer or before patrolling police officer.
Thereupon, they asked the police party to
conduct search upon them. Thereafter,
accused were searched out by patrolling
police party with their consent. One
accused told his name as Naeem S/o Jameel
and 100 gm morphine was recovered from
his
trouser's
right
pocket
whereas
Rs.1,100/- were recovered from left pocket.
Second accused told his name as Mustafa
Chunnu and 100 gm morphine was
recovered from his trouser's right pocket
whereas Rs.900/- were recovered from left
pocket. Third accused told his name as
Yusuf S/o Munne and 100 gm morphine
was recovered from his trouser's right
pocket whereas Rs.700/- were recovered
from left pocket. Fourth accused told his
name as Shamshad S/o Shafiq and 100 gm
morphine was recovered from his trouser's
right
pocket
whereas
Rs.600/-
were
recovered from left pocket. Thereafter,
recovery memo was prepared; recovered
contraband morphine was sealed; all the
accused were arrested and a criminal case
on the basis of recovery memo was lodged
under Sections 8/21 of N.D.P.S. Act at
Police
Station
Jagdishpur,
District
Sultanpur.

3. Investigation was handed over to
the Sub Inspector Ram Pal Singh, who
recorded the statement of witnesses;
inspected the place of occurrence and
prepared site plan; recovered contraband
morphine was sent to Forensic Science
Laboratory, Lucknow, U.P., for chemical
examination. After investigation charge
sheet was filed against the appellant.

4. The accused-appellant was charged
for offence u/s 8/21 N.D.P.S. Act; to which
he pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial.

5. In support of the prosecution case,
the prosecution examined Constable Ram
90 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Murti Prajapati as P.W.-1, Station House
Officer S.P. Gupta as P.W.-2, Constable
Chhangu Ram as P.W.-3 and Sub Inspector
Ram Pal Singh as P.W.-4.

6. Genuineness of the formal police
papers i.e. F.S.L. Report (Ex. Ka-6) and
Charge Sheet (Ex. Ka-10) were admitted by
the appellant.

7. Appellant was examined under
Section
313
of
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure, 1973, (in short 'Code') wherein
he stated that he had been falsely
implicated due to enmity as he did not pay
the money to the police officers.

8. Learned trial Court, after going
through the evidence available on record as
well as after due hearing the learned
counsel for both the parties, convicted and
sentenced the appellant for five years
rigorous imprisonment alongwith fine of
Rs.6,000/- under Section 8/21 of N.D.P.S.
Act.

9. Aggrieved by the aforesaid
judgment and order, the appellant has filed
this appeal.

10. Learned counsel for the appellant
submitted that prosecution case, based on
statements
of
Constable
Ram
Murti
Prajapati (P.W.-1) and Station House
Officer S.P. Gupta (PW-2), is wholly
unreliable as the other police witnesses of
patrolling party have not been examined by
the prosecution. He further submitted that
mandatory provision of sections 50, 55 and
57 of N.D.P.S. Act were not complied with.
It has further been submitted that recovered
contraband goods were not weighed either
at the time of recovery or before the trial
Court and no sample was taken at the time
of recovery. Learned counsel further
submitted that the alleged place of recovery
is public place but no effort to invite the
public witness at the time of recovery was
made by the police party. Learned trial
Court without proper appreciation of the
evidence available on record has illegally
convicted the appellant vide impugned
judgment and order which is liable to be set
aside as the prosecution has miserably
failed to prove its case beyond reasonable
doubt. In support of his argument learned
counsel for the appellant has placed
reliance on law laid down by Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Vijaysinh Chandubha
Jadeja Vs. State of Gujarat, 2010 (2) EFR
755
and
State
of
Rajasthan
Vs.
Parmanand and another, (2014) 2 SCC
(Cri) 563.

11. Learned A.G.A. vehemently
opposed the submission of learned counsel
for the appellant and submitted that there is
no illegality in the impugned judgment and
order as it is settled provision of law that
only on the solitary testimony of witness,
conviction can be maintained and statement
of police witness cannot be rejected on the
ground that he is a police witness. Learned
A.G.A. further submitted that impugned
judgment and order, passed by trial Court,
is well reasoned, well discussed and appeal
is liable to be dismissed.

12. After considering the arguments
advanced by learned counsel for the parties
and after perusal of record, this Court finds
that the prosecution case is based on oral
testimony of Ram Murti Prajapati (P.W.-1)
and Station House Officer S.P. Gupta (PW2) because Constable Chhangu Ram (P.W.-
3) and Sub Inspector Ram Pal Singh (P.W.-
4) are not eye witnesses. It is settled
principle of law that only on account of the
fact that prosecution case is based on
testimony of police witness, it cannot be
10 All. Yusuf Vs. State of U.P.
91
thrown out, if the evidence of such witness
is wholly reliable. Thus it has to be seen
whether the testimony of PW-1 and P.W.-2
is wholly reliable or not.

13. Ram Murti Prajapati (P.W.-1) and
Station House Officer S.P. Gupta (PW-2)
have stated in their testimony that on
28.01.2004, they were on patrolling duty in
search of wanted criminal along with Sub
Inspector Bhola Prasad, Head Constable
Shiv Dutt Singh, Constable Shyam Shanker
Saroj, Constable Santosh Kumar Singh and
Constable Driver Rama Shanker Tiwari and
as the patrolling party reached Gulab Ganj
Crossing, they saw four to five persons
standing at west side of Jagdishpur Bus
Depot in suspicious condition and tried to
escape from there. The police party, on
sensing some doubt in view of their
conduct, apprehended and caught them on
spot. Upon interrogation, they confessed
that they were carrying morphine; they
were told that they had options either to get
them searched before Gazetted Police
Officer or before patrolling police officer.
Thereupon, they asked the police party to
conduct search upon them. Thereafter,
accused were searched out by patrolling
police party with their consent. One
accused told his name as Naeem S/o
Jameel and 100 gm morphine was
recovered from his trouser's right
pocket
whereas
Rs.1,100/-
were
recovered from left pocket. Second
accused told his name as Mustafa
Chunnu and 100 gm morphine was
recovered from his trouser's right
pocket
whereas
Rs.900/-
were
recovered from left
pocket. Third
accused told his name as Yusuf S/o
Munne and 100 gm morphine was
recovered from his trouser's right
pocket
whereas
Rs.700/-
were
recovered from left pocket. Fourth
accused told his name as Shamshad S/o
Shafiq and 100 gm morphine was
recovered from his trouser's right
pocket
whereas
Rs.600/-
were
recovered from left pocket. Thereafter,
recovery
memo
was
prepared;
recovered contraband morphine was
sealed; all the accused were arrested
and a criminal case on the basis of
recovery memo was lodged under
Sections 8/21 of N.D.P.S. Act at Police
Station Jagdishpur, District Sultanpur.

14. Head Constable Chhangu Ram
(P.W.-3) is not an eye witnesses,
however,
he
had
stated
that
on
28.01.2004 he was posted at Police
Station Jagdishpur, District Sultanpur.
He had proved the Chik No.7 of 2004,
Case Crime No.24 of 2004, under
Sections 8/21 of N.D.P.S. Act against
the accused Yusuf.

15. Sub Inspector Ram Pal Singh
(P.W.-4) had produced the alleged
sealed recovered morphine along with
sample
seal
before
the
concerned
Judicial
Magistrate.
This
witness
further stated that sample of alleged
morphine was separated before the
concerned Magistrate, sealed separately
and docket was prepared for chemical
examination.

16. Severe punishment has been
provided in the N.D.P.S. Act to check
the misuse of this Act by the police
personnel
or
officers
and
certain
safeguards particularly Section 50 of
N.D.P.S. Act has been incorporated in
this Act that search of the suspected person
must be done before the Magistrate or
Gazetted Officer. Similarly Section 55 and
57 of N.D.P.S. Act provides that seized
contraband article be kept by Station House
92 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Officer in safe custody and report of arrest
and seizure be sent immediately to
immediate Superior Officer within 48
hours.

17. Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Vijaysinh Chandubha Jadeja Vs. State of
Gujarat, 2010 (2) EFR 755, while
discussing the importance and relevancy of
section 50 of N.D.P.S. Act, in para-22, has
opined as under:-

"22. In view of the foregoing
discussion, we are of the firm opinion that
the object with which right under Section
50(1) of the NDPS Act, by way of a
safeguard, has been conferred on the
suspect, viz. to check the misuse of power,
to avoid harm to innocent persons and to
minimise the allegations of planting or
foisting of false cases by the law
enforcement
agencies,
it
would
be
imperative on the part of the empowered
officer to apprise the person intended to be
searched of his right to be searched before
a gazetted officer or a Magistrate. We have
no hesitation in holding that in so far as the
obligation of the authorised officer under
sub-section (1) of Section 50 of the NDPS
Act is concerned, it is mandatory and
requires a strict compliance. Failure to
comply with the provision would render the
recovery of the illicit article suspect and
vitiate the conviction if the same is
recorded only on the basis of the recovery
of the illicit article from the person of the
accused during such search. Thereafter, the
suspect may or may not choose to exercise
the right provided to him under the said
provision. As observed in Re Presidential
Poll (1974) 2 SCC 33, it is the duty of the
courts to get at the real intention of the
Legislature by carefully attending to the
whole scope of the provision to be
construed. "The key to the opening of every
law is the reason and spirit of the law, it is
the animus imponentis, the intention of the
law maker expressed in the law itself, taken
as a whole." We are of the opinion that the
concept of "substantial compliance" with
the requirement of Section 50 of the NDPS
Act introduced and read into the mandate
of the said Section in Joseph Fernandez
(supra) and Prabha Shankar Dubey (supra)
is neither borne out from the language of
sub-section (1) of Section 50 nor it is in
consonance with the dictum laid down in
Baldev Singh's case (supra). Needless to
add that the question whether or not the
procedure prescribed has been followed
and the requirement of Section 50 had been
met, is a matter of trial. It would neither be
possible nor feasible to lay down any
absolute formula in that behalf. We also
feel that though Section 50 gives an option
to the empowered officer to take such
person (suspect) either before the nearest
gazetted officer or the Magistrate but in
order to impart authenticity, transparency
and
creditworthiness
to
the
entire
proceedings, in the first instance, an
endeavour should be to produce the suspect
before the nearest Magistrate, who enjoys
more confidence of the common man
compared to any other officer. It would not
only
add
legitimacy
to
the
search
proceedings, it may verily strengthen the
prosecution as well."

18. Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of
Rajasthan Vs. Parmanand and another,
(2014) 2 SCC (Cri) 563, again in
paragraph-17, has opined as under:-

"In
our
opinion,
a
joint
communication of the right available under
Section 50(1) of the NDPS Act to the
accused would frustrate the very purport of
Section 50. Communication of the said
right to the person who is about to be
10 All. Yusuf Vs. State of U.P.
93
searched is not an empty formality. It has a
purpose. Most of the offences under the
NDPS Act carry stringent punishment and,
therefore, the prescribed procedure has to
be
meticulously
followed.
These
are
minimum safeguards available to an
accused against the possibility of false
involvement. The communication of this
right has to be clear, unambiguous and
individual. The accused must be made
aware of the existence of such a right. This
right would be of little significance if the
beneficiary thereof is not able to exercise it
for want of knowledge about its existence.
A joint communication of the right may not
be clear or unequivocal. It may create
confusion. It may result in diluting the
right. We are, therefore, of the view that the
accused must be individually informed that
under Section 50(1) of the NDPS Act, he
has a right to be searched before a nearest
gazetted
officer
or
before
a
nearest
Magistrate. Similar view taken by the Punjab
& Haryana High Court in Paramjit Singh
and the Bombay High Court in Dharamveer
Lekhram Sharma meets with our approval."

19. Admittedly, the prosecution has not
produced other eye-witnesses of the alleged
recovery i.e. Sub Inspector Bhola Prasad,
Head Constable Shiv Dutt Singh, Constable
Shyam Shanker Saroj, Constable Santosh
Kumar Singh and Constable Driver Rama
Shanker Tiwari. No explanation has been
offered by the prosecution for their nonproduction. These witnesses are police
personnel.
Non-production
of
these
witnesses, where serious allegation has been
made against Station House Officer S.P.
Gupta (PW-2) by the appellant, is serious
lacuna which has made the prosecution case
very doubtful.

20. There is another serious lacuna in
the prosecution case, as stated by Station
House Officer S.P. Gupta (PW-2) that after
recovery of the said morphine, he kept it in
his possession. It means that he had not
deposited
the
recovered
morphine
in
Malkhana of concerned police station. He
(P.W.-2) has not stated anything as to when
he handed over the seized contraband goods
to concerned official for keeping it in safe
custody. He (P.W.-2) has also not stated that
being S.H.O. at the time of seizure why he
did not deposit the contraband seized article
into Malkhana of concerned police station
and kept it in his personal custody.

21. In addition to above, admittedly the
appellant, prior to his search, was not
produced before any Gazetted Officer or
Magistrate, whereas according to prosecution
before his search the police personnel were
informed by the appellant that he was
carrying the morphine. Prosecution has also
not produced any written consent of the
appellant for his search. From perusal of
testimony of P.W.-2, it does not transpire that
any efforts were made by him to produce the
appellant before any Gazetted Officer or
Magistrate, as required by Section 50 of
N.D.P.S. Act, in view of law laid down by
Apex Court in Vijaysinh Chandubha Jadeja
(Supra).

22. Further, it is also pertinent to note at
this juncture that not only the manner in
which the appellant was searched, is
doubtful, the prosecution has also not
prosecuted the case seriously, knowing that
severe punishment has been provided in
N.D.P.S. Act. It produced only two
witnesses of fact i.e Constable Ram Murti
Prajapati as P.W.-1, Station House Officer
S.P. Gupta as P.W.-2 and withheld other
witness without any justification.

23. In the light of above discussion, it
is clear that the prosecution has failed to
94 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
prove the mandatory compliance of Section
50 N.D.P.S. Act. In absence of compliance
of mandatory provision of Section 50
N.D.P.S Act, the prosecution case, based on
testimony of police personnel i.e. Constable
Ram Murti Prajapati (P.W.-1), Station
House Officer S.P. Gupta (P.W.-2) whose
statements are not wholly reliable, cannot
be held as proved beyond reasonable doubt
in view of the other illegalities and material
irregularity committed by P.W.-1 and P.W.-
2 as discussed above.

24. Thus this Court is of the view that
prosecution has miserably failed to prove
its case beyond reasonable doubt against
the appellant. The trial Court has not
properly discussed the evidence produced
by the prosecution and has passed the
impugned judgment and order against the
settled
principle
of
law
including
provisions of N.D.P.S. Act. This Court,
therefore, unable to uphold the conviction
and sentence of the appellant. The appellant
is entitled to be acquitted. The impugned
judgment and order is liable to be set aside
and accordingly, appeal is liable to be
allowed.

25. In view of the above, impugned
judgment and order dated 18.01.2005 /
24.01.2005 passed by learned Additional
District & Sessions Judge (F.T.C. - III), Court
No.12, Sultanpur, convicting the appellant in
Criminal Case No.8/2004, under Section 8/21
of N.D.P.S. Act, Police Station Jagdishpur,
District Sultanpur, is set aside and reversed
and accused/appellant, namely, Yusuf is
acquitted of the charges levelled against him.
Consequently, the appeal is allowed. His
personal bond and surety bonds are canceled
and sureties are discharged.

26. Let a copy of this judgment
alongwith the lower court record be sent
immediately to the Trial Court concerned for
necessary compliance.

27. No order as to the costs.
----------
(2023) 10 ILRA 94
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 20.09.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJAN ROY, J.
THE HON'BLE AJAI KUMAR SRIVASTAVA-I, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 921 of 1981

Ali Hasan ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellant:
S.C. Shukla, Arshad Ahsan Siddiqui, Arun
Sinha, G. Saran, S.B. Mathur, V. Sharotria,
Vivek Tripathi

Counsel for the Respondent:
Government
Advocate,
Anurag
Singh
Chauhan, Arun Kumar Singh, N. Mohan

Criminal Law - Juvenile Justice (Care and
Protection of Children) Act, 2015 - Sections
8, 9 & 25 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 -
Sections 374(2) & 391 - Claim of Juvenility
- Appellate Jurisdiction - Inquiry into
Juvenility - Role of Juvenile Justice Board
- The appellant, Abdul Wahid @ Channan, filed
an application (C.M. Application No. 46349 of
2017) claiming juvenility under the Juvenile
Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act,
2015, in a criminal appeal (No. 921 of 1981)
before the High Court under Section 374(2)
Cr.P.C.

Held: (1) The application, though cited under
Section 7 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, was
treated as one under Section 9(2) of the
Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, as a wrong provision
citation is not fatal. (2) Section 9(2) allows a
claim of juvenility to be raised before any court,