High CourtsSingle Bench(2018) 08 UK CK 0089

Asif vs State of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand High Court · Decided on 16 August 2018

HON’BLE JUDGES
Lok Pal Singh, J
RESULT
List after three weeks
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Appeal No.172 of 2018

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

20 paragraphs · 353 words

LOK PAL SINGH, J.

This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 22.05.2018 passed by Special Judge POCSO/F.T.C./Additional Sessions Judge,

Dehradun in S.T. No.59 of 2014, whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012

and Sections 363 and 366-A of The Indian Penal Code, 1860 and has been sentenced appropriately.

A perusal of impugned judgment and order would reveal that the Additional Sessions Judge has mentioned the name of father of the victim whereas

as per the directions issued by Hon’ble Supreme Court the name of the relatives, name of the complainant, name of the father, name of the

mother, name of the prosecutrix should not to be disclosed in the matters pertaining to sexual offences against children under the POCSO Act. It

cannot be expected from the judges who are dealing with the matters relating to POCSO Act that they are not aware of the provisions of Section

228A of IPC. This kind of mistake by the Trial Judge would be considered as judicial laxity and is against the mandate of Hon’ble Apex Court.

Â

This Court also, on several occasions, had issued directions to the Trial Judges in this regard. [Registrar General of this Court vide letter no.

4495/UHC Criminal dated 11.04.2018, circulated the certified copy of the order of this Court dated 28.12.2017, passed in Criminal Appeal no. 388 of

2017, for information and necessary compliance].

Smt. Rama Pandey, F.T.C./Special Judge (POCSO)/Additional Sessions Judge, Dehradun shall show cause as to why she did not comply with the

circular / guidelines issued by this Court and has not followed the command of the statutory provisions, which is otherwise not expected from a Judicial

Officer. She shall also show cause as to why criminal case be not registered against her under section 228-A of IPC. Let reply be filed by the Officer

within three weeks.

List after three weeks.

Registrar General is directed to again circulate this order to all the Judicial Officers.

Let a copy of this order be also placed before the Hon’ble Judgment Committee, for kind perusal.