- (1.) Heard Sri Shamsher Singh, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Indrajeet Singh, learned counsel for the Revisionist, Sri Ajay Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2, learned A.G.A. for State of U.P. and perused the record.
(2.) This Criminal Revision under Section 53 of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2000 ( hereinafter referred to as 'Act, 2000') has been filed against the judgment and order dated 01.06.2015 passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge / Fast Track Court, Pilibhit in S.T. No.167 of 2012 ( State Vs. Kanchan Lal and others), whereby the application of the revisionist for declaring him Juvenile has been rejected, in case Crime No.1158 of 2011, under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, Police Station - Nuria, District Pilibhit.
(3.) Learned Counsel for the revisionist contends that : 3.1 The revisionist is a juvenile in conflict with law in respect of case Crime No.1158 of 2011, under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Nuria, District Pilibhit and is in custody since 19.12.2011. He is entitled to the benefits of the provisions of the Act, 2000. 3.2 He further urged that the First information report in respect of above case was lodged by the opposite party no.2 on 19.12.2011 at 12.45 Hrs for the incident alleged to have taken place on 18/19.12.2011 at unknown time, the date of birth of the revisionist is 15.08.1994 and at the time of the incident his age was near about 17 years and as such at the time of incident the revisionist was juvenile. An application dated 15.05.2015 has been moved on behalf of the revisionist to declare him Juvenile, before the learned trial Court which was rejected vide impugned order on the basis of inadmissible evidence and irrelevant consideration. Impugned order is wrong, illegal and liable to be set-aside.;