SAROOP KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Revision Petition has been registered on the application of the revisionist Saroop Kumar, wherein he has stated that he was tried and convicted for an offence under S.302 of the Penal Code by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kangra at Dharamsala, vide his order dt. Dec. 6, 1983, which order was then set aside, in appeal, by this High Court vide order dt. April, 3, 1985, holding that the commitment order as also the trial of the revisionist by the Additional Sessions Judge in pursuance to the commitment order were without jurisdiction since the revisionist was a child at the relevant time. The revisionist was, thereafter tried for the same offence by the Children's Court at Una which Court after holding him guilty ordered that the revisionist be kept for a period of seven years for the offence under S.302 of the Penal Code in Special School at Haroli or in any other Special School or Reformatory School or Borstal School or any other institution as the State Government may deem it fit in view of the provisions of S.23 of the H.P. Children Act, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Thereafter the revisionist vide an application dt. Dec. 15, 1987 again approached the Children's Court with the request that he be released on his executing surety bond to the satisfaction of the Court and be entrusted to the care and custody of his parents against adequate security as he had attained the age of majority, that is, 18 years and it was not proper to keep him with the children in the Special School at Haroli and that he had attained the age of 18 years in the year 1986. This application of his was also rejected by the Children's Court vide its order dt. April, 8, 1988 and hence this revision. The revisionist has urged in the instant revision petition that his case was governed by S.21 of the Act and not under S.23 of the Act and, therefore, the order of the Children's Court dt. June 17, 1986 under S.23 of the Act was improper.

(2.) Since this petition has been sent through Incharge, Special Children School, Una where the revisionist remains lodged, this Court appointed Shri Praneet Gupta, Advocate, as pleader, at State expenses to assist this Court on behalf of the revisionist and this Court places on record its appreciation that he has done his job well.

(3.) From the judgement of the Children's Court dt. June 17, 1986, it is apparent that according to the finding of the Court, the revisionist at the time of the commission of the offence in question was over 14 years of age and the Court has, therefore, ordered his detention in the Special Children School for seven years in accordance with S.23 of the Act. In fact para 57 of the impugned judgement being relevant in this behalf is reproduced as under :-