Himachal Pradesh High Court
State Of Himachal Pradesh vs Chanpreet Singh ... on 2 July, 2019
Author: Chander Bhusan Barowalia
Bench: Chander Bhusan Barowalia
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MP (M) No.434 of 2019.
Date of Decision : 2nd July, 2019.
.
State of Himachal Pradesh ...Applicant/Appellant.
Versus Chanpreet Singh ...Non-applicant/Respondent.
Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Chander Bhusan Barowalia, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes.
For the applicant : Mr. Shiv Pal Manhans, Mr. P.K. Bhatti, Addl. Advocate Generals with Mr. Raju Ram Rahi, Dy. Advocate General, for For the respondent : Mr. S.R. Pandeyar, Advocate, for the respondent-accused.
Chander Bhusan Barowalia, Judge (oral).
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 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 00:13:58 :::HCHP 2objection 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 00:13:58 :::HCHP 35. In rebuttal, learned Additional Advocate General has argued that the present application be allowed, to meet the ends of justice.
.
6. To appreciate the arguments of learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties, I have gone through the entire record in detail.
7. 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."
8. 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 ::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 00:13:58 :::HCHP 4 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.
(Chander Bhusan Barowalia) nd 2 July, 2019. Judge (CS) ::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 00:13:58 :::HCHP