BABURAO R MASKAR Vs. KISANSINGH DURGASINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal revision application is directed against the order dated 29th November, 1982 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay, in Criminal Appeal No. 75 of 1979 ordering the appeal memo to be returned to the petitioner for presentation to the proper Court.

(2.) One juvenile boy, son of the respondent No. 1 Kisansingh, was charged with the offence under section 384 read with section 114 I.P.C. for having extorted the amount of Rs. 1,02,000/- belonging to the petitioner complainant Baburao R. Maskar by giving threats to the complainants son Suresh (P.W. 2). During investigation a cash amount of Rs. 42,000/- in 42 currency notes of Rs. 1,000/- each, which is marked as Exhibit B, and the amount of Rs. 341/-, which is marked as Exhibit G, and the property alleged to have been purchased with the extorted amount, which is marked as Exhibit F (Collectively), was recovered from the house of the respondent No. 1. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate presiding over the Juvenile Court, Umerkhadi, Bombay, after trial of the boy on the charge for the aforesaid offence, acquitted the boy and directed that he be handed over to his father, the respondent No. 1, and would be under the supervision of the Probation Officer for one year. As regards the property, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate ordered confiscation to the, Government of the amount of Rs. 42,000/- (Ex. B) and Rs. 341/- (Ex. -G), and as regard the property (Ex. F (Colly.) ) she ordered proclamation thereof. The complainant, feeling aggrieved, filed a criminal appeal, being Criminal Appeal No. 21 2 of 1979, in the Sessions Court, Greater Bombay. That appeal was heard by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay (Shri A.D. Kale). The learned Additional Sessions Judge held that the order passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate presiding over the Juvenile Court was under section 452 Cri.P.C. and in view of the provisions of section 454(l) Cri.P.C. read with section 69 of the Bombay Children Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as, the "Act"), the order passed by the Juvenile Court was the final order and as such the appeal would lie to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate to whom the appeal lies from the conviction of a child by the Juvenile Court. In this view of the matter, he held that he had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal, and directed that the appeal memo be returned to the complainant for presentation to the proper Court.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner-complainant contends that the order passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate presiding over the Juvenile Court regarding disposal of property is not a final order as defined in section 4(l)(g) of the Act and the appeals under section 94 of the Act are provided only against the final orders and, therefore, the appeal against the order of disposal of property by the Juvenile Court does not lie to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and as such the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge directing the appeal memo to be returned to the complainant for presentation to the proper Court is not correct. The Public Prosecutor Mrs. Manjula Rao, on the other hand, contends that in the Act there is no provision for passing an order by the Juvenile Court regarding disposal of property on conclusion of trial and, therefore, the provisions of section 452 Criminal Procedure Code would apply and as per the provisions of section 454 Criminal Procedure Code the appeal against such order would lie to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate to whom the appeals ordinarily lie against the orders of the Metropolitan Magistrate presiding over the Juvenile Court under section 94(2)(a) of the Act. Thus, according to her, the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is correct.