Allahabad High Court
Sonu Tomar @ Mohit Tomar vs State Of U.P. on 27 March, 2015
Author: Pramod Kumar Srivastava
Bench: Pramod Kumar Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD AFR Court No. - 16 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4039 of 2003 Revisionist :- Sonu Tomar @ Mohit Tomar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Revisionist :- J.N. Chaturvedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Pramod Kumar Srivastava,J.
The facts in brief are that application on behalf of juvenile offender Sonu Tomar (revisionist) has been moved before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad for grant of bail under Section 12 of Juvenile Justice (Care and protection of Children) Act, 2000. When learned Magistrate rejected the bail application, then appeal under Section 52 of aforesaid Act had been moved for grant of bail to him. This appeal had been rejected by Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad by impugned judgement and order dated 08.12.2003, against which, present revision has been preferred.
At the time of hearing, none appeared on behalf of the revisionist.
Learned AGA was present and argued on behalf on behalf of the opposite parties and considered the contentions of learned AGA and the grounds mentioned in memo of revision.
A perusal of the impugned judgment and record reveals that learned Sessions Judge had considered the facts and circumstances of the of the matter as well as gravity of the offence and manner, in which, it was committed and thereafter it was held that ground of bail to the revisionist will not only frustrate the purpose of justice but if release the appellant is likely to fall into association of criminal, so it would not be just and proper to enlarge him on bail. On this ground, learned Sessions Judge had rejected the request of bail of the revisionist and dismissed the appeal.
I am in agreement with this contention mentioned in memo of revision that gravity and manner of offence will not make any decision in a case where accused is juvenile. Section 12 (1) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 deals with provision relating to bail of juvenile offender, which reads as under:
Section 12 Bail of Juvenile (1) When any person accused of a bailable or non-bailable offence, and apparently a juvenile, is arrested or detained or appears or is brought before a Board, such person shall notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2) of 1974) or in any other law for the time being in force, be released on bail with or without surety but he shall not be so released if there appear reasonable grounds for believing that the release is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or that his release would defeat the ends of justice.
Under the aforesaid Act, general role is for granting the bail of juvenile in conflict with law and rejection is exception. The bail of said juvenile can be refused, if there appears grounds for believing that the release is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or that his release would defeat the ends of justice.
In the present matter, learned Sessions Judge had considered thus factual aspect of the matter and, after scrutinizing, they gave finding of fact that grant of bail to the revisionist and appellant will not only frustrate the purpose of justice, but appellant, if release, is likely to fall into the association with criminal, so it would not be just and proper to grant him bail.
The factual aspect of findings of fact on these points cannot be challenged through revision. In Deb Narayan Halder vs. Anushree Halder (Smt),2004 S.C.C. (Cri) 164, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:
"It is well settled that the appellate or revisional court while setting aside the findings recorded by the court below must notice those findings, and if the appellate or revisional court comes to the conclusion that the findings recorded by the trial court are untenable, record its reasons for coming to the said conclusion. Where the findings are findings of fact it must discuss the evidence on record which justify the reversal of the findings recorded by the court below. This is particularly so when findings recorded by the trial court are sought to be set aside by an appellate or revisional court. One cannot take exception to a judgment merely on the ground of its brevity, but if the judgment appears to be cryptic and conclusions are reached without even referring to the evidence on record or noticing the findings of the trial court, the party aggrieved is entitled to ask for setting aside of such a judgment."
.
In Jagannath Choudhary & ors vs. Ramayan Singh & another, AIR 2002 S.C. 2229, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:
"Where the court concerned does not appear to have committed any illegality or material irregularity or impropriety in passing the impugned judgment and order, the revision cannot succeed. If the impugned order apparently is presentable, without any such infirmity which may render it completely perverse or unacceptable and when there is no failure of justice, interference cannot be had in exercise of revisional jurisdiction".
In Munna Devi vs. State of Rajasthan & another, 2002 Cri. L.J. 225, the Supreme Court has held as under:
"The revision power under the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be exercised in a routine manner. While exercising such powers the High Court has no authority to appreciate the evidence in the manner as the trial and the appellate courts are required to do. Revisional powers could be exercised only when it is shown that there is a legal bar against the continuance of the criminal proceedings or the framing of the charge or the facts as stated in the First Information Report even if they are taken at the face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence for which the accused has been charged. This Court in Kanti Bhadra Saha & Anr. v. State of West Bengal has held that there is no legal requirement for the trial court to write a reasoned or lengthy order for framing the charges."
In revision under Section 397 of the Cr.P.C, the Court has to satisfy itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding sentence or order and as to regularity of the proceedings. The revisional court cannot look into and interfere in finding of facts reached by subordinate courts as held by Apex Court in aforementioned verdicts that the revisional court cannot exercise jurisdiction available to appellate court for interference in finding of facts.
A perusal of the impugned order reveals that learned subordinate court had considered the correctness, legality and propriety of the matter and not acted with any irregularity at the time given findings of fact relating to revisionist. Therefore, finding of fact given by learned Sessions Judge cannot be interfered through exercise, therefore, revision fails, and is hereby dismissed.
Order Date :- 27.3.2015 Sanjeev