NIHAL Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned AGA and perused the records.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that an FIR under sections 302/34 was registered at police station Kotwali, Pilibhit in which the revisionist was also named. In due course he moved an application that he be declared a juvenile and after consideration of his contentions his plea of juvenility was accepted and he was declared as juvenile keeping in view the date of alleged murder. Thereafter his case was referred to the Board. The revisionist moved a bail application under section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (for short the Act) before the learned Board who after considering the same rejected it vide its order dated 28.3.2012. Feeling aggrieved by such order an appeal under section 52 of the Act was filed. After hearing both the parties the appeal was dismissed on 20.4.2012. Feeling aggrieved by this order the present revision under section 53 of the Act has been filed.

(3.) The report of the District Probationary Officer is available as annexure SA-1 of the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the revisionist on 7.1.2013. I have perused this report . From perusal of this report it is evident that it has been prepared in a most cursory manner and without application of mind by the District Probationary Officer, Pilibhit. It appears that he has discharged his liability just by filling-in the vacant columns of a cyclostyled or Xerox copy of form number IX of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007. From perusal of such report it does not transpire that the District Probationary Officer has taken pains to visit the required places and collect required informations regarding the nature, conduct details of the circumstances (under which the child is living) and behaviour of the juvenile. It appears that in a routine manner he has filled-in the said form and submitted it to the Board. Such attitude and sense of negligence in discharge of his official duty on the part of the District Probationary Officer, Pilibhit is not desirable. Law casts upon him a very important and noble duty in respect of juveniles and the District Probationary Officer should have realized the importance of such responsibility, but he has failed.