CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench(2013) 02 AHC CK 0301

Smt. Vijai Kumari vs State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad High Court · Decided on 4 February 2013 · Citation: (2013) 2 ACR 1786 : (2013) 81 ALLCC 776

HON’BLE JUDGES
S.C. Agarwal, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Revision No. 216 of 2013

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

6 paragraphs · 364 words

S.C. Agarwal, J.—Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for opposite party. This revision u/s 397 /401, Cr. P.C. is directed against the judgment and order dated 20.12.2012 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 2. Bulandshahar in Crl. Case No. 46 of 2012, State v. Smt. Vijai Kumari. under Sections 420, 468 and 471, I.P.C., P.S. Arniya. District Bulandshahar, whereby the application for discharge u/s 239, Cr. P.C. moved on behalf of the revisionist was dismissed.

2.

Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that allegation against revisionist is that she applied for appearing in the Intermediate Examination as a private candidate on the basis of a forged transfer certificate. It was contended that the father of revisionist was the Head Master of the school and forgery, if any, was committed by father of revisionist, the revisionist cannot be held responsible for the same.

3.

It was further submitted that at the time of alleged offence, the applicant was a juvenile and her case is covered by provisions of U.P. Children Act and in the alternative Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000.

4.

The applicant wanted to appear in the Intermediate Examination as a private candidate on the basis of a forged transfer certificate. Whether she had the knowledge about forgery or not is a matter to be decided during trial. At this stage, no case for discharge is made out and the application for discharge has been rightly rejected by the trial court.

5.

As regards, the plea of juvenility is concerned, this plea was not raised by the revisionist before the trial court. If there is any documentary evidence to show the juvenility of the revisionist on the date of offence, it is always open to the revisionist to make an appropriate prayer in this regard before the trial court, and if such an application is filed, the same shall be considered in accordance with law.

6.

The order passed by the Magistrate rejecting the application for discharge does not suffer from any error or illegality and the said order does not require any interference by this Court. The revision lacks merit and is. accordingly, dismissed.