GAURAV SHUKLA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) INSTANT criminal revison has been preferred challenging the order dated 14.11.2013 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Court No.1, Lucknow in Criminal Appeal No.338 of 2013, which was preferred against the order dated 13.08.2013 passed by Juvenile Justice Board whereby the application of the appellant Gaurav Shukla moved under Section 301 Cr.P.C. was rejected.

(2.) IN brief, the facts necessary for the disposal of the instant revision are that the revisionist Gaurav Shukla was an accused in Case Crime No.80 of 2005, Police Station Ashiyana, District Lucknow, under Sections 365, 376 IPC. After investigation police submitted charge -sheet against the present revisionist. Thereafter, the revisionist claimed himself to be a juvenile. Juvenile Justice Board declared him to be juvenile. This order of declaring him juvenile was challenged in appeal, filed by the complainant. Said appeal of the complainant was allowed and the order of Juvenile Justice Board, declaring the revisionist to be juvenile, was set aside and the matter was remanded to Juvenile Justice Board, Lucknow for deciding the age of the revisionist after taking the evidence and examining all the documents which may be produced by the parties. Thereafter, the Juvenile Justice Board again conducted an inquiry on the point of age of the revisionist and thereafter it declared that the present revisionist was not a juvenile on the date of incident. This order was again challenged in appeal by the present revisionist on the ground that he was not given an opportunity to adduce his evidence in the age determination inquiry. The appeal was again allowed and the matter was again remanded and in compliance of the said order at present the Juvenile Justice Board is proceeding with the inquiry.

(3.) DURING course of inquiry the witnesses produced on behalf of the revisionist were cross examined on behalf of the complainant, therefore, an application, referring Section 301 Cr.P.C. was moved on behalf of the revisionist praying that the learned Juvenile Justice Board cannot permit the complainant to participate in the inquiry and to cross -examine the witnesses. This application was rejected by the Juvenile Justice Board. Feeling aggrieved thereby, the Criminal Appeal No.338 of 2013 was preferred and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Lucknow vide his judgment dated 14.11.2013 has dismissed the appeal and directed the parties to appear before the Juvenile Justice Board on 20.11.2013. Feeling aggrieved by the order of Juvenile Justice Board and of the appellate authority, the instant revision has been preferred.