JAFAR Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A perusal of the office report dated 08.11.2019 shows that notice issued to opposite party no. 2 has been received back after its service personally on opposite party no. 2, a copy of which has been placed on record. It has also been reported by the office that Shri Piyush Kant Vishwakarma, Advocate has filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party no. 2 which is available on record but even in revised turn no one is present on behalf of opposite party no. 2 to address the Court. Learned counsel for revisionist and learned A.G.A. for State are present.

(2.) This criminal revision under Section 102 Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2015 [here-in-after referred to as the "Act"] is against the order dated 27.02.2019 passed by learned Special Judge/ First Additional Sessions Judge, Bhadohi, Gyanpur in Criminal Appeal No. 02/2019 (Jafar Vs. State of U.P.) in relation to the Case Crime No. 72/2018 under Section Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2015, P.S.- Bhadohi, District- Bhadohi whereby learned appellate court has dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order dated 16.11.2018 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Bhadohi.

(3.) The fact giving rise to present revision are that the first information report was lodged by opposite party no. 2 on 09.03.2018 at 22:15 hrs. alleging therein that the revisionist along with the co-accused Shahbaj has committed unnatural sex with his minor son Mohd. Reyan aged about six years. An application was moved on behalf of applicant before the Juvenile Justice Board claiming himself juvenile which was rejected by the Juvenile Justice Board, Bhadohi vide order dated 20.07.2018 against this order of the Juvenile Justice Board. Criminal Appeal No. 8 of 2018 was preferred by the applicant before the Special Judge/ First Additional Sessions Judge, Bhadohi, Gyanpur which was allowed by judgment and order dated 18.09.2018 and it was held that the revisionist is a child in conflict with law.