The Punjab And Haryana High Court in the case X v. State of Haryana observed and has set aside the order of ASJ, Sonepat, wherein the court dismissed the appeal filed against an order to try a juvenile as an adult. Further, the court stated that the court should have decided the matter on merits without going into the hyper technical grounds of limitation for making an appeal.
The bench headed by Justice Karamjit Singh in the case observed and has stated that the petitioner was already declared as a child in conflict with law by the Court concerned and the petitioner is stated to be less than 18 years of age. It being the duty of the Court to impart justice and the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat should have decided the matter in question on the merits without going into hyper technical grounds of limitation, the court should keep in mind the fact that the petitioner is a juvenile.
In the present case, the said court was hearing the revision petition under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice, the Care and Protection of Children Act 2015, reading with section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which was been filed by the petitioner against the order passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge in March. The court dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order passed by the Juvenile Justice Board in August 2022 as the appeal was time-barred.
Therefore, the counsel appearing for the petitioner argued before the court that the petitioner is a child in conflict with law but the Principal Magistrate of Juvenile Justice Board wrongly passed the order to conduct the trial by treating the petitioner as an adult in August in the year 2022.
Further, it has also been stated by him that the appeal filed against the order was dismissed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat in March and the court without entering into the merits of the case, just on the ground that appeal was time barred.
The counsel also highlighted to the Court that petitioner is just 17 years of age and is not conversant with the technicalities of law and due to some misunderstanding the petitioner failed to file the appeal within the prescribed period of limitation of 30 days.
However, the court noted that even the counsel appearing for the state is of the view that the Court of Additional Sessions Judge should have disposed of the appeal on merits and not on technical ground of limitation.
The court observed and stated that the present petition is hereby allowed and the impugned order dated March 14, 2023 is set aside and the said matter is remanded back to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat to decide the same afresh on merits without insisting on the point of limitation.
The counsel, Advocate, Sarfraj Anjum Mor appeared for the petitioner.
The counsel, DAG, Naveen Sheoran represented
the State.