LAWS(P&H)-2010-2-440

STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. RAJESH ALIAS TILAK RAM

Decided On February 22, 2010
STATE OF PUNJAB Appellant
V/S
RAJESH ALIAS TILAK RAM Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application filed by the State of Punjab under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying for leave to file an appeal against the judgment of acquittal recorded as against the juvenile Rajesh Kumar alias Tilak Ram by the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Jalandhar.

(2.) At the outset we may observe that no appeal shall lie from any order of acquittal made by the Board in respect of a Juvenile alleged to have committed an offence as per Section 52(2) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. Of course under Section 53 of the said Act, 2000 suo moto revision or a revision based on the application received in that behalf can be entertained by the High Court to satisfy itself as to the legality or propriety of any such order passed by the Juvenile Justice Board. Therefore treating the appeal sought to be preferred as revision, let us test whether any case has been made out by the State for admitting a revision as against the order of acquittal recorded by the trial Court against the juvenile.

(3.) It is the case of the prosecution that on 27.2.2003 the police received secret information that Artinder Singh alias Pappu and Surjit Singh alias Jassa hailing from Jammu were residing at Jalandhar and were indulging in selling opium and smack at large scale. They have also received further information that Sunil Kumar used to purchase and sell the smack and Rajesh Kumar used to supply smack and opium to them. A ruqa was sent to the police station for registration of a case. All the abovementioned four persons were apprehended during the course of raid conducted by the police party. Two polythene bags were found in the suit case carried by Rajesh Kumar. In the said suit-case opium and smack were recovered. Samples were drawn and investigation was completed. As the respondent Rajesh Kumar was a juvenile, separate final report was presented before the Principal Magistrate. Juvenile Justice Board.