MASTER DIVESH SHARMA Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Through the instant petition, the juvenile in conflict with law, challenges an order, made under Section 14 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, by the Juvenile Justice Board, Kangra at Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P. Through the impugned order, the Juvenile Justice Board, made the hereinafter extracted order:

(2.) The reasons (supra) are founded upon the notice of accusation being put on 2.5.2019 to the juvenile in conflict with law. On the afore date, he did not plead guilty, and, claimed inquiry. The matter was listed on 1.6.2019, for the recording, of, the testimonies, of PWs, , however, no PWs were present, on the afore date, as service upon them was not complete. On 4.6.2019, the juvenile in conflict with law was not present, however, one PW was present, but his statement could not be recorded, given the juvenile in conflict with law, becoming given an exemption from personal appearance. On 1.7.2019, the coram of the Board was not complete. On 5.8.2019, an application for exemption, from personal appearance, of the juvenile, in conflict with law, was made, which became allowed. On 2.9.2019, the coram of the Juvenile Justice Board was not complete, hence the matter was listed on 5.10.2019, for proper orders. On 5.10.2019, an application seeking exemption from personal appearance of the juvenile, on behalf of his counsel, was moved and became allowed. Again on 1.11.2019, an application was moved on behalf of the juvenile, in conflict with law, was allowed. On 5.10.2019, again an application for exemption form personal appearance was moved, which was allowed. On 5.8.2019, hence after elapse of more than 4 months, from the first personal appearance on 1.2.2019, of the juvenile in conflict with law, before the Juvenile Justice Board, an application became cast, borne under Section 14 of the Act, before the Juvenile Justice Board. However, upon the afore made application, the impugned order, became rendered on 4.1.2020. Though, as stated (supra) there are departures, by the Juvenile Justice Board concerned, from the mandate carried in Section 14 of the Act. However, the validity of the purported departures, are to be tested, from, the date of the first appearance of the juvenile in conflict with law, before the board concerned, and, upto his moving an application, whereons, the impugned order became passed. Therefore, and, therefroms, this Court concludes, that the apposite departures appertaining to the afore spell are neither willful nor are made to stall the operation of the statutory mandate, as the displays (supra), in the order sheet (supra), as appertaining to the afore spell, reveal that there were rather omissions on the part of the Juvenile in conflict with law, to, record his personal appearance(s), before the Board concerned, respectively, upon the date assigned for the notice of accusation, being put to him, and, for the statements, of the PWs, being recorded. Consequently, it appears, that the counsel for the Juvenile in conflict with law, has despite occurrences of the delays (supra) rather attributable to him or the juvenile in conflict with law, hence through a stratagem deployed by him, rather strived to capitalize, upon the mandate (supra), carried in Section 14 of the Act. Therefore, if the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, is, accepted, this Court, is, of the considered view, that the salutary purpose, behind the mandate carried in statutory provisions (supra) would become ill-validated. Even otherwise, if this Court, validates the endeavor of the petitioner, it would be counter-productive, inasmuch as the victim is concerned, conspicuously, when as aforestated, the, drawing of capitalization, upon the mandate (supra) by the juvenile, is, aptly pureyable to him, only upon his not delaying proceedings, whereas, is un-available to him, upon mis-advises to him, by his counsel, to prolong the proceedings, through his seeking repeated exemptions, from his personal appearance(s) before the Board concerned, hence causing frustration of the mandate (supra). Consequently, making balance(s) interse the rights of the victim, and, of, the juvenile in conflict with law, this Court deems it unfit to invalidate the impugned order.

(3.) Consequently, this Court finds no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. The impugned order is affirmed and maintained. Also, the pending application(s),if any, are disposed of. No costs.