Delhi District Court
Khalid vs . State on 24 May, 2012
Khalid vs. State
IN THE COURT OF SH. PAWAN KUMAR JAIN
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-01 ( CENTRAL): DELHI
Criminal Appeal No. 33/2012
ID No. 02401R0205702012
KHALID
THROUGH RUBY @ HASINA
W/O SHAHID
R/O LONI, MUSTAFABAD,
IKRAM NAGAR, RAJA MASJID
LONI, UP
AND
SAFIA W/O ANEESH
R/O H. NO. 93,
V. & PO, MUSTAFABAD, LONI,UP
(THROUGH NATURAL GUARDIAN AND NANI)
............Appellant/Petitioner
Versus
STATE
...........Respondent
Date of Institution : 05.05.2012
Judgment reserved on : 17.05.2012
Date pronouncement of judgment : 24.05.2012
Present: Sh. Sunil Tiwari, Advocate, counsel for appellant.
Sh. R.K. Tanwar, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
JUDGMENT:
1. This Criminal Appeal has been filed against the impugned Crl. Appeal No. 33/12 Page 1 of 4 Khalid vs. State judgment dated January 9, 2012 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board-I, Sewa Kutir Complex, Delhi.
2. Necessary facts in brief leading to filing the present criminal appeal are that the appellant juvenile was found in the possession of the 300 grams heroin while was carrying to deliver the same to some other person. After making a detail inquiry, learned Juvenile Justice Court observed that the appellant/juvenile did not have anybody to take care of him, thus, he required institutionalised care. Accordingly, he was sent Special Home for a period of one year which shall be re-viewable depending upon the facts and circumstances.
3. Aggrieved by the said order, appellant has filed the present criminal appeal.
4. I have heard Sh. Sunil Tiwari, Advocate, counsel for appellant and Sh. R.K. Tanwar Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the record carefully.
5. Learned counsel appearing for appellant requested to reduce the period of detention on the ground that appellant has mother and grandmother (Nani) to take care of him. It was submitted that earlier mother and grandmother of appellant failed to render requisite assistance to the Juvenile Justice Board under some confusion and submitted that his mother and Nani would take appropriate steps for the welfare of the appellant and ensure that the appellant be not indulged himself in unlawful activity.
6. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor contended that Juvenile Justice Board had made a comprehensive inquiry before sending the Crl. Appeal No. 33/12 Page 2 of 4 Khalid vs. State appellant to the Special Home, thus, it was argued that impugned order does not require any interference.
7. Perusal of the record reveals that appellant was found in the possession of 300 grams of heroin while he was carrying the same to hand over to some other person. During the course of inquiry conducted by the Board, appellant not only admitted his involvement but also disclosed before the Board that about 100 puriyas of heroin were recovered from his possession, which were given to him by one lady and he was supposed to hand over the same to another lady named Rani in the Jhuggis located near Irwin Hospital. From the response of Juvenile and the body language of the appellant, Board opined that appellant was well aware about the business of trafficking of drugs. It appears that appellant was used as carrier to carry the contraband items from one place to another.
8. When mother of the appellant was called, she informed the Board that appellant was residing with his Nani and she has no control over the juvenile. Board also found contradiction between the version of appellant and his mother. During inquiry, it was also revealed that Ruby is the step mother of the appellant and the real parents of juvenile are residing in Bangladesh. Considering the comprehensive inquiry report, Board opined that the juvenile did not have anybody to take care of him, thus, he needed institutionalised care.
9. From the impugned order it is abundantly clear that the Board had made a comprehensive exercise to form an opinion that appellant required institutionalised care. Admittedly, appellant was found carrying heroin in the large quantity and he was well aware about the matrix of the transaction, this itself establishes that some one is using the appellant as a carrier of the Crl. Appeal No. 33/12 Page 3 of 4 Khalid vs. State contraband items. From the impugned order, it is also clear that Ruby, step mother of appellant and Safiya have no control over the appellant. If appellant is not properly care at this stage, there is every likelihood that appellant may become the victim of nefarious activities of unscrupulous persons. Thus, institutional care is in the benefit of juvenile.
10. Under section 15(1)(g) of the Act, the period of detention may go up to 3 years, however, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Board has sent the juvenile to Special Home for the period of one year, thus, the Board has already taken a lenient view and I do not find any reason to reduce the said period as requested by learned counsel.
11. In the light of above discussion, I do not find any merit in the appeal, accordingly, I hereby dismiss the same.
12. Copy of judgment be sent to the Board. TCR be sent back.
13. Criminal Appeal file be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open court
on this 24th day of May, 2012 (PAWAN KUMAR JAIN)
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-01
CENTRAL/THC, DELHI.
Crl. Appeal No. 33/12
Page 4 of 4