Court No. - 50 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 25241 of 2009 Petitioner :- Abdul Salam Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Another Petitioner Counsel :- Lakshman Singh Respondent Counsel :- Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Mrs. Poonam Srivastav, J.
Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned A.G.A. for the
State.
The order dated 27.3.2009 passed by Juvenile Justice Board,
Lalitpur is impugned in the instant petition.
Respondent no.2 was declared juvenile by Civil Judge (Junior
Division) Orai vide order dated 20.11.2004, which is challenged in
criminal revision no.60 of 2005. The said revision was dismissed
by Sessions Judge Jalaun at Orai vide order dated 25.1.2005. Both
orders were challenged in criminal misc. writ petition no.2979 of
2005, which was finally disposed of by this Court vide order dated
22.3.2005 setting aside order dated 25.1.2005 because revisional
court failed to apply its mind. Learned Sessions Judge Jalaun at
Orai was directed to pass afresh order in criminal revision no.60 of
2005 filed by petitioner/revisionist in accordance with law. Matter
was transferred by District Judge Jalaun at Orai for afresh decision
to FTC No.2 pursuant to High Court’s order.
Record of criminal revision no.60 of 2005 was also placed before
FTC No.2 at the relevant time and entire matter was examined.
Thereafter, finding has been recorded that Rajjak and Rais were
aged 16 years and 5 months and 16 years 7 months respectively on
the date of occurrence, Therefore, they were declared juvenile.
Submission is that direction given by this Court in criminal misc.
writ petition no.2979 of 2005 has not been followed completely is
not acceptable for the reasons that on perusal of impugned order, it
transpires that record of criminal revision no.60 of 2005 was sent
by District Judge to Fast Track Court No.2. These orders can be
passed in administrative capacity. It is not intention of the court
that while remanding the matter, some particular learned Judge
should hear the matter. It is absolutely clear that record of criminal
revision no.60 of 2005 was also placed and examined by FTC
No.2.
I have perused the order impugned. No good ground for
interference is made out. the instant revision lacks merit and is,
accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 21.1.2010
rkg