PAHALWAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present revision has been filed against the judgment and order dated 7 -11 -2002 passed by the Sessions Judge, Kanpur Dehat in Appeal under Section 22 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'.

(2.) THE brief history of the case is that the revisionist was challaned under Sections 498 -A and 304 -B I.P.C. and moved an application for bail before the C.J.M. Kanpur Dehat, which was rejected and thereafter an application for bail was filed before the Sessions Judge, Kanpur Dehat. This application was converted into an appeal and was heard by the Addl. Sessions Judge (Court No. 1), Kanpur Dehat, who found that the revisionist, on the basis of the school leaving certificate, is entitled to get the benefits of the provisions of the said Act but dismissed the appeal on the ground of limitation directing the C.J.M. to dispose of the application for bail, if moved a fresh in the light of the observations made in the judgment and according to law. Being aggrieved by the said order the present revision has been filed.

(3.) THE learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Court No. 1 has observed that the bail application was presented before the Sessions Judge on 4 -10 -2002, which was converted into appeal by the order dated 25 -10 -2002. The bail application was rejected by the C.J.M. on 31 -7 -2002 and the limitation for filing appeal was only 30 days; hence it was held to be barred by time. The order dated 31 -7 -2002 shows that some application was earlier rejected on 9 -7 -2002 and as per the office report the record was sent to the Court of the Sessions Judge for disposal of the bail application on 25 -7 -2002. It means that some bail application was filed even prior to this order dated 31 -7 -2002. Moreover, the Sessions Court while passing the order dated 25 -10 -2002 converting the application into appeal should have taken care that it cannot be converted as the same was beyond time. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Court No. 1 has already observed in the judgment that the revisionist is below the age of 15 years and he should get the benefit of the Act. Hence he directed the C.J.M./Judicial Magistrate to consider the case of the revisionist, if fresh application is moved.