Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

8. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner No.2 being a juvenile as on the date of occurrence of the incident, could not have been subjected to trial all along and convicted for the offence and therefore the order passed by the trial Court, the appellate Court and this Court is bad in law as petitioner No.2 ought to have been referred to the Juvenile Justice Board to be subjected to trial in NC: 2024:KHC-D:15615 accordance with law. Learned counsel has also argued on the provisions of section 267 of Cr.P.C., section 260 to 270 of Cr.P.C., which was not extended to the petitioners/accused. On these grounds he contends that the order passed requires to be recalled and reviewed. It is further contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners have been in custody for more than 10 years and non extending the benefit of set off is illegal, arbitrary, which has not been considered by this Court and hence, he has approached before this Court to invoke the review jurisdiction to recall the order and review the impugned order by extending the benefit.