- (1.) HEARD Shri Suyash Gupta, learned counsel for the revisionist; Shri Sharad Dixit, learned AGA for the State respondent and Atul Verma, learned counsel for opposite party no.2.
(2.) INSTANT criminal revision has been filed by Pradeep Kumar Yadav, son of Ayodhya Prasad Yadav challenging the order dated 17.8.2011 passed by Special Judge, Essential Commodities Act/Additional Sessions Judge, Lucknow in ST No.1156 of of 2002 (State v. Lalit Kumar Yadav and another) by which learned Sessions Judge declared the accused Lalit Kumar Yadav as juvenile in case under Sections 498 -A, 304 -B IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act in crime no.332 of 2002 registered at Police Station Chinhat, Lucknow.
(3.) AS per factual matrix of the case, FIR was lodged against Lalit Kumar Yadav and another as crime no.332 of 2002, under Sections 498 -A, 304 -B IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act at Police Station Chinhat, Lucknow by the informant Pradeep Kumar Yadav. After investigation charge sheet was submitted. An application was moved by Lalit Kumar Yadav that he is juvenile. On this, the then Additional District and Sessions Judge, Lucknow ordered on 14.5.2003 that before hearing the parties on the bail application, it will be proper to obtain a medical report regarding the age of Lalit Kumar Yadav from Chief Medical Officer, Lucknow. After medical report was obtained, the Additional District and Sessions Judte, Court No.10, Lucknow vide order dated 11.8.2003 declared Lalit Kumar Yadav opposite party no.2 a juvenile. Feeling aggrieved, the present revisionist filed criminal revision no.593 of 2003 challenging the order dated 11.8.2003 before this Court in which following order was passed: - "The revision is allowed. The impugned order dated 11.8.2003 is set aside. The learned Additional Sessions Judge is directed to decide the question of juvenility of respondent no.2 afresh in the light of the observations made hereinbefore and pass appropriate order in accordance with law, after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the parties." After that an application was moved before the court concerned on 18.6.2010 in which it was prayed that the court be pleased to pass order for taking the accused Lalit Kumar Yadav into custody henceforth, and decide the question of juvenility afresh. When this application was moved, the court below vide impugned order again declared Lalit Kumar Yadav to be a juvenile. That order has been challenged in this criminal revision on the ground that impugned order was passed without giving opportunity to the revisionist to adduce evidence and to be heard. The impugned order was passed without applying judicial mind, without recording any evidence and previous order was repeated. It was further submitted that application 13 -B was moved only for taking Lalit Kumar Yadav into custody, so there was no occasion to pass the order declaring the accused juvenile.;