A plain reading of Section 52 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (Act) shows that

no statutory appeal is available against any finding of the Court that a person was not a juvenile at the time of commission of the offence. Section 53 of the Act which is titled Revision, however, provides that the High Court may at any time, either of its own motion or on an application received on that behalf, call for the record of any proceeding in which any competent authority or Court of Session has passed an order for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality or propriety of any such order, and may pass such order in relation thereto as it thinks fit. While exercising such revisional powers, the High Court cannot convert itself to an appellate court and reverse the findings of fact arrived at by the trial court on the basis of evidence or material on record, except where the High Court is not satisfied as to the legality or propriety of the order passed by the trial court. The trial court, has given good reasons for discarding the evidence adduced by the respondent No. 1 in support of his claim that he was a juvenile at the time of commission of the alleged offence and there was no scope to hold that the order of the trial court was either illegal or improper and the High Court should not have substituted its own finding for that of the trial court on the age of respondent No. 1 at the time of commission of the alleged offence by re-appreciating the evidence. High Court under Section 53 cannot convert itself into Appellate Court and interfere with the findings of Trial Court until it is not satisfied as to the legality or propriety of the Order passed by the Trial Court.

1.

WHETHER THE APPEALS MADE BEFORE THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA

PRADESH ARE MAINTAINABLE? 1.1 That the appeal in case of juvenile is not maintainable. It is humbly submitted that under Section 521 of JJA , an appeal lies when any person aggrieved by an order made by a competent authority under this Act may, within thirty days from the date of such order, prefer an appeal to the Court of Session. Under Section 532 of JJA only Revisionary Powers have been given to the High Court. In the instant case no appeal has been preferred before the Sessions Court and the High Court is being treated as an Appellate court. It is humbly submitted, without any prejudice, before this Honble Court that such a treatment would be bad in law. The attention of the Honble Court is drawn to the Supreme court judgment in the case of Jabar Singh v. Dinesh and Ors.3wherein, it was held that: High Court under Section 53 cannot convert itself into Appellate Court and interfere with the findings of Trial Court until it is not satisfied as to the legality or propriety of the Order passed by the Trial Court.

1 2 3

2010 3 SCC 757

This ratio has been upheld by the Supreme Court as recently as February 2013,4 and also various High Courts including this Honble Court in a catena of cases.5 It is also humbly submitted that in Manoj Kumar Yadav v. Km. Shobha Bos6 clearly lays down that where the court concerned does not appear to have committed any illegality, material irregularity or impropriety in passing the impugned judgment and order , the revision would be dismissed. It is humbly submitted that in the instant case also , there was no illegality or impropriety on part of the Sessions Court as the due procedure was followed. In the case of Vimal Singh, it is observed by the Apex Court that in an appeal against acquittal by the State High Court is having very limited jurisdiction. Interference is limited to exceptional cases, such as Trial Court's order suffering from glaring irregularity or has caused miscarriage of justice or there was absence of jurisdiction to try the case or Trial Court has illegally shut out the evidence which should have been considered or where material evidence clinching the issue was overlooked.7 Revisional Jurisdiction of High Courts is invoked in exceptional and rarest of rare cases. In the case of Krishan Vs. Krishnaveni reported in MANU/SC/0223/1997 : (1997) 4 SCC 241, the Apex Court has held that though the inherent power of the High Court is very wide, yet the same must be exercised sparingly and cautiously. Only in cases where the High Court finds that there has been failure of justice or misuse of judicial mechanism or procedure, sentence or order was not correct, the High Court may in its discretion prevent the abuse of process or miscarriage of justice by exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code. Thus , it is reverentially submitted that in the instant case the Honble High Court is being treated as an appellate court without preffering an appeal in the Sessions Court. 1.2 That the appeal in case of Venu Madhavan and News of the world is not maintainable.

4 5

Lakshmibai National Institue of Physical Education and Anr. v. Shant Kumar Agrawal MANU/SC/0145/2013 Yuvraj v. State of Himachal Pradesh 2011(2)ShimLC373; Ashwani Kumar Saxena v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2012)9SCC750;Harjinder Singh v. Ramgopal 2011(1)ShimLC386
6 7

1993 Cr LJ 1246 (All)

Vimal Singh v. Khuman Singh and Anr. 1999 C LJ 16

It is humbly submitted that the appeal is not maintainable before the honble High Court of Madhya Pradesh.Owing to the fact that there was no illegality , impropriety and due procedure of law8 was followed by Sessions Court under Section 2039 of the IPC. It is humbly submitted that the Sessions court, Bhopal had the original jurisdiction on this matter. Sessions court is the place of first instance and therefore has power to appreciate the evidences, based on which if the sessions court has rejected the complaint against the respondents. Moreover the appellate court has limited jurisdiction to upset the order of trail court10

2.

WHETHER THE HIGH COURT HAS THE POWER TO CLUB THE APPEALS?

The clubbing of cases is being contested on two grounds: 2.1 Section 223 (d) of Code of Criminal Procedure Clause (d) of Section 223 specifies that persons accused of the same offence committed in the course of the same transaction can be tried together. However, in the instant case, clearly the offences were not the same. Respondent 1, Respondent 2 and Respondent 3 were charged with gang rape under Section 376(2)(g) and a complaint was filed against Respondent 5 and Respondent 6 for Disclosure of the Victims Identity which was dismissed by the Sessions Court. The words same transaction occurring in this Section comprises of all the acts done in course of carrying through the affair in question , and the prima facie test is community and continuity of purpose. If several persons conspire to commit offences, and commit overt acts in pursuance of the conspiracy, those acts are committed in the course of same transaction. It is humbly asservated that in this case there was neither community of purpose or design nor continuity of action. The requirements of proximity of time and unity of place are also not satisfied. In Balbir vs. State of Haryana, the accused was alleged to have killed a person without any junction with the accused in the other case, then it cannot be treated as the same offence or different offences committed in the course of same transaction. 11 Hence, it is reverentially submitted that the order of clubbing of cases is not justified.

8 9

1993 Cr LJ 1246 (All) Chandrappa and Ors. v. State of Karnataka (2007 (4) SCC 415

10 11

2.2 Section 18 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2000. This section clearly states that there shall not be a joint proceeding of juvenile and a person not a juvenile. In Bijoy Singh vs. State of West Bengal, it was held that in a murder case , the accused who was below 18 years of age could not be tried jointly with adults. Similarly in Dilip Saha vs. State of West Bengal, an order directing joint trial of the juvenile petitioner with the adult accused were set aside and quashed.12
Further in a case as recent as 201213 , the Court categorically held that "If Accused is found below 18 years of age at time of commission of offence then trial of
Juveniles be separately conducted by Juvenile Board."

12 13

Hariom Soni v. State of Madhya Pradesh And Ors 2012(1)Crimes111