ZAFAR IQBAL Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 15.11.2010 passed by Additional Session Judge (Court No.4), Etawah in Session Trial No.603/1999 (State Vs. Shadab Jameel & others), under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302/34 I.P.C., by which the application of the revisionist for separate his trial from other co-accused persons, has been rejected.

(2.) The brief facts are that the revisionist whose date of birth is 1.7.1981, was charged for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302/34 I.P.C. Under the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 he was not juvenile but after the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, by which the age of juvenile was extended up to 18 years, the revisionist moved an application before the Sessions Judge to declare him juvenile. The occurrence took place on 28.2.1999, when he had already completed 16 years of age but has not attained the 18 years of age. Accordingly, vide order dated 6.8.2010 he was declared juvenile.

(3.) Subsequent to that on 28.10.2010, the revisionist moved an application before the Sessions Judge to separate his trial in view of Sections 17 and 18 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, which was rejected by the impugned order dated 15.11.2010, on the ground that the case is covered by the provisions of Section 20 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, hence there is no sufficient ground to separate his file. It is relevant to mention here that the application to separate the trial was moved when all the evidence of the prosecution had concluded and the case was fixed for arguments. In the order dated 6.8.2010, when the accused was declared juvenile, it was mentioned that his case shall be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of Section 20 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. This order of 6.8.2010 was not challenged and as an additional ground the learned lower court came to the conclusion that this Court has no power to recall or review his previous order.