AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The instant application is directed against the judgment dated 27th June, 2013, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-IInd, Seraikella Kharswan, in Criminal Appeal No. 55 of 2010, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed and the enquiry order dated 27th August, 2010, passed by the learned Principal Magistrate, the Juvenile Justice Board, Seraikella in connection with G.R. Case No. 169 of 2007(E.R. No. 15 of 2010) arising out of Seraikella, P.S. Case No. 23 of 2007, whereby the petitioner was directed to go to the special home, Chirugora, Dhanbad for a period of three years under Section 15(1)(g) of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Amendment Act, 2006, has been affirmed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner confines his argument on the question of sentence and submits that the petitioner has already remained in special home for a period of about 2 years and at present he is not involved in any criminal activities and living peacefully and sending him back to custody will ruin his entire career.
Per contra, the learned A.P.P. though supports the impugned orders but did not dispute the contention that the petitioner remained in special home for about two years and now he is living peacefully and not involved in any criminal activity.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the impugned orders and the lower court records and keeping in mind the limited scope of revision jurisdiction, I am not inclined to interfere with the findings given by the courts below and as such the Enquiry Order passed by the Juvenile Justice Board and upheld by the learned appellate Court, is hereby, confirmed.
However, so far as sentence is concerned, it is apparent from record that the incident is of the year, 2007 and more than 12 year has elapsed and it appears from record that the petitioner has remained in Special Home for about 748 days. Further, the record transpires that he has never misused the privilege of bail. In this view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that sending the petitioner back to prison will not serve any fruitful purpose, rather the sentence should be modified in lieu of fine.
Thus, the sentence passed by the learned trial court and upheld by the learned appellate court is, hereby, modified to the extent that the petitioner is sentenced to undergo for the period already undergone subject to payment of fine of Rs.10,000/-.
It is made clear that the petitioner is directed to pay the aforesaid fine of Rs.10,000/- within a period of three months from today before the learned District Legal Services Authority, Serikella-Kharsawan, failing which he shall serve rest of the sentence as directed by the learned trial court.
With the aforesaid observations, directions and modification in sentence only, this revision application is disposed of.
The petitioner is discharged from the liability of his bail bonds.
Let the lower court record be sent to the court concerned forthwith.
Let this order be sent to the learned trial court and the District Legal Services Authority, Serikella-Kharsawan through FAX.