State Of Himachal Pradesh vs Chanpreet Singh

Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J

This application has been preferred by the applicant/appellant, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 197 days in filing

the Criminal Revision. As per the applicant, in the instant case, certified copy of the impugned judgment was applied on 7.12.2018 and the same was

delivered on 17.12.2018. On receipt of the certified copy, the case was examined by the concerned Public Prosecutor, Solan. Thereafter, the case

was sent by the District Magistrate, Solan, to the Additional Chief Secretary (Home) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, for taking further

decision. The case file was returned to District Magistrate, Solan, on 16.11.2018 with the objection that the certified copy of order dated 30.7.2018,

passed by the learned Principal Magistrate Juvenile Justice Board, Solan, is not enclosed with the proposal. The District Magistrate, Solan, sent the

same alongwith record of the case, which was received in the Home Department and the case was referred to the Law Department for seeking their

opinion. Thereafter, the case was submitted to the competent authority for taking decision. The application is duly supported with an affidavit.

Reply to the application has been filed by non-applicant/respondent and it has been averred that the applicant was negligent in pursuing the matter

and the present application is hopelessly time barred and the same is liable to be dismissed.

Learned Additional Advocate General has argued that the learned Court below should have taken into consideration the fact that the juvenile

offender, who has committed mischief as well as offence punishable under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code, he should have been dealt in

accordance with law, after ignoring the technical defect.

On the other hand, Mr. S.R. Pandeyar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has argued that the delay in the present case is

intentional and even otherwise also, there is nothing in the present revision petition and the present application is just of abuse the process of law.

In rebuttal, learned Additional Advocate General has argued that the present application be allowed, to meet the ends of justice.

To appreciate the arguments of learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties, I have gone through the entire record in detail.

From the perusal of record, impugned order dated 30.7.2018, passed by the learned Principal Magistrate Juvenile Justice Board, Solan, reads as

under :

“Rule 10 (6) of juvenile justice (care and protection of children) model rules 2016 provides that in case of petty or serious offence final report shall

be filed before board at the earliest and in any case not beyond the period of two months from date of information to the police.

The present case is registered for offences punishable under Sections 379, 427 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code which as per definition of petty

offence defined under Section 2 of Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 are of petty nature. Thus in view of rule 10 (6) quoted above the final report must have

been filed within two months from the date of information to police. The words “in any case not beyond the period of two months†used in rule 10

(6) suggests that provision is mandatory. Moreover no reason whatsoever is cited in police report as to why final report is being filed after the delay of

more than three months.

It is not out of place to mention here that Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 and model rules 2016 being special enactment has to prevail over the general

procedure provided under Code of Criminal Procedure. Best interest of the child in conflict with law seems to be the central theme of Juvenile Justice

Act, 2015 and model rules 2016 but not filing the final report within stipulated period cannot be stated to be in the best interest of child.â€​

Heard. At this stage, taking into consideration the fact that the delay in the present case is more than 197 days, which is not explained at all and

even the report before the learned Principal Magistrate Juvenile Justice Board, was also filed beyond the time and also taking into consideration the

offences against which, the juvenile offender to be tried, which is an offence punishable under Section 379 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code, this

Court finds that the interest of justice demands that the application of the State, which is devoid of any merits, deserves dismissal and is accordingly

dismissed. Revision petition is thus dismissed without registration, as not filed within time.