Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Punjab vs Criminal Misc. No.A-533-Ma Of 2 on 22 February, 2011
Author: Satish Kumar Mittal
Bench: Satish Kumar Mittal
Criminal Misc. No.A-533-MA of 2010 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Misc.No.A-533-MA of 2010
Date of decision: February 22,2010
State of Punjab
V.
Rajesh alias Tilak Ram son of Prem Shanker resident of House
No.155, Ward No.35, near Budh Wali Masjid, Purana Sahr, Bareli
(U.P.)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. JEYAPAUL
Present: Mr. H.S.Brar, Additional Advocate General, for the
applicant-State of Punjab.
M. Jeyapaul, J.
This is an application filed by the State of Punjab under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying for leave to file an appeal against the judgment of acquittal recorded as against the juvenile Rajesh Kumar alias Tilak Ram by the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Jalandhar.
2. At the out set we may observe that no appeal shall lie from any order of acquittal made by the Board in respect of a Juvenile alleged to have committed an offence as per Section 52(2) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act,2000. Of course under Section 53 of the said Act suo-moto revision or a revision based on the application received in that behalf can be entertained by the High Court to satisfy itself as to the legality or propriety of any such order passed by the Juvenile Justice Board. Criminal Misc. No.A-533-MA of 2010 2 Therefore treating the appeal sought to be preferred as revision, let us test whether any case has been made out by the State for admitting a revision as against the order of acquittal recorded by the trial Court against the juvenile.
3. It is the case of the prosecution that on 27.2.2003 the Police received secret information that Artinder Singh alias Pappu and Surjit Singh alias Jassa hailing from Jammu were residing at Jalandhar and were indulging in selling opium and smack at large scale. They have also received further information that Sunil Kumar used to purchase and sell the smack and Rajesh Kumar used to supply smack and opium to them. A ruqa was sent to the Police Station for registration of a case. All the above mentioned four persons were apprehended during the course of raid conducted by the Police party. Two polythene bags were found in the suit case carried by Rajesh Kumar. In the said suit-case opium and smack were recovered. Samples were drawn and investigation was completed. As the respondent Rajesh Kumar was a juvenile, separate final report was presented before the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board.
4. Only three official witnesses were examined before the Juvenile Justice Board. As there was no evidence to establish the recovery of opium and smack from the possession of the Juvenile Rajesh Kumar alias Tilak Ram, the case ended in acquittal.
5. The learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the State of Punjab would submit that the evidence on the side of the prosecution was abruptly closed by the Juvenile Justice Board. If further opportunity is afforded, the state would let in evidence, Criminal Misc. No.A-533-MA of 2010 3 establishing the recovery of possession of smack and opium from the possession of the juvenile Rajesh Kumar alias Tilak Ram. Therefore, it is his submission that leave will have to be granted to prosecute the appeal so that a plea for remand of the matter could be put forth before this Court in the interest of justice.
6. The case under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act has originated way back on 27.2.2003. The juvenile Rajesh Kumar has stood the trial for about eight long years before the Juvenile Justice Board. The Juvenile Justice Board has categorically observed in the impugned judgment that the prosecution did not show any interest to lead further evidence despite sufficient opportunities offered to it. Even the last opportunity given by the Juvenile Justice Board was not availed of by the prosecution.
7. PW1 HC Daljinder Singh has spoken about the samples entrusted to the Chemical Examiner. PW2 Tarsem Singh has spoken to the registration certificate of the scooter belonging to Arvinder Singh one of the accused in this case. PW3 HC Vijay Kumar has deposed about the samples deposited with him. As rightly pointed out by the Juvenile Justice Board, the recovery of opium and smack from the possession of the juvenile Rajesh Kumar alias Tilak Ram was not established by the prosecution. As the juvenile had faced trial for about eight long years and the prosecution also had not shown any interest in leading further evidence in this matter, the question of remanding the matter also would not arise. The Juvenile Justice Board cannot wait unendingly for the prosecution to lead further evidence, inspite of the fact that sufficient opportunity was Criminal Misc. No.A-533-MA of 2010 4 given and final chance also was offered in a case where the juvenile was facing trial before it.
8. The Juvenile Justice Board has rightly concluded the trial and passed a verdict of acquittal after noticing the material produced before it. There is no impropriety or illegality in the order passed by the juvenile Justice Board. Therefore, no case for revision has been made out, leave alone granting permission to prefer an appeal as against the order of acquittal recorded by the trial Court which is not legally permissible under Section 52 of the Act.
9. The application stands dismissed accordingly.
( M.Jeyapaul )
Judge
February 22 ,2010 ( Satish Kumar Mittal )
sks Judge