Allahabad High Court
Juvenile -X vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 10 January, 2024
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:4800 Court No. - 82 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4763 of 2023 Revisionist :- Juvenile -X Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Balbir Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Mrs. Jyotsna Sharma,J.
1. Heard Sri Balbir Yadav, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri L.D. Rajbhar, learned AGA for the State.
2. By means of this revision, the convict has challenged an order dated 09.05.2022 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board by which, finding him guilty for the offence under section 376 IPC, he was directed to do community service under the supervision of the C.M.O., Aligarh under the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 and to detain him at a place of safety in Gazipur, in case of default and further has challenged the order passed in appeal wherein maintaining the conviction, the order was modified and the period of community service was reduced from 2 years 8 months to 1 year 4 months.
3. During the course of arguments, the revisionist has confined his prayer on the point of sentence only, which has been passed under section 18 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as 'the J.J. Act, 2015'), submitting that as he has now turned 32 years old and has a wife and a minor kid to look after, therefore, he is not in a position to perform the community service of 5 hours everyday without payment of any honorarium therefore, it is not possible for him to undergo that period of community service. It may be clarified again that the revisionist is not challenging the judgment holding him guilty and has opted not to press that portion of prayer clause and is now pressing the challenge to sentencing part of the order only passed under section 18 of the J.J. Act, 2015.
4. Section 18 of the J.J. Act, 2015 provides that when the Board is satisfied on an inquiry, he may pass an order as given in section 18(1)(a) to (g) and section 18(2)(i) to (v) of the J.J. Act, 2015. In the instant case, the J.J. Board passed an order directing the convict to perform community service under supervision of the C.M.O., Aligarh, in terms of provisions of section 18(1)(c) of the J.J. Act, 2015. The only concern of the revisionist is that he has a family to look after, therefore, it is not practicable for him to perform the community service for 5 hours everyday and further that he will not be paid any money for the services performed and he will be faced with financial constraints.
5. Such contentions may be attractive at first sight but it should not be forgotten that the order which are envisaged under section 18 of the J.J. Act, 2015, actually do not fall in the nature of sentence as understood in traditional sense of the word. The J.J. Act, 2015 provides that where a juvenile is found actually 'a child in conflict with law' and he has been proven guilty, keeping in mind the objectives of the Act and to strike a balance between the reformative purpose and interest of the society, the provisions of section 18 of the J.J. Act, 2015 have been framed. The juvenile offenders have been treated with a, soft approach. The kind of punishment, if at all, it can be called a punishment, is in no way harsh. To a certain extent a streak of retribution is appropriate even in an order under section 18 of the J.J. Act, 2015.
6. Under section 102 of the J.J. Act, 2015, the High Court may interfere in the order passed by the court or the children court only if any illegality or impropriety is found in the order. I do not find any illegality or impropriety in the order so as to prompt this court to interfere in the impugned orders, in exercise of powers under section 102 of the J.J. Act, 2015, hence the revision is hereby dismissed.
Order Date :- 10.1.2024 #Vikram/-