Bakhtawar Singh Vs. S.i. Gajsingh - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

- section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & juvenile justice (care and protection of children) rules, 2007, rule 12 & 98 & juvenile justice act, 1986, section 2(h): [altamas kabir & cyriac joseph, jj] determination as to juvenile - appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 act was in force and under clause (h) of section 2 a juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years - it is with the enactment of the juvenile justice act, 2000, that in section 2(k) a juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years of a ge which was given prospective prospect - appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the juvenile justice act, 2000, came into force - juvenile act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by rule 12 of juvenile justice rule, 2007 - as such, accused has to be treated as juvenile under the said act. .....section 406, penal code.' it is accordingly just to be seen whether the accused opposite-party had any dishonest intention at the time, or not. the fact that the accused opposite-party got the motor-cycle registered in his own name soon after it had been delivered to him by dishonestly giving impression to the authorities concerned that it had been purchased by him in some auction-sale, any way, goes to show that dishonest intention might have been there and, in the circumstances, the complaint should not have been dismissed straightway but the trial of the case should have been proceeded with under chedule xxi, criminal p.c.5. the application in revision accordingly is allowed, the order of the trial court dismissing the complaint is set aside and the case is remanded for trial now by mr. a.p. dewan with the remark that he is not to get prejudiced one way or the other by any inadvertent observation that might have been made above.6. it may further be mentioned here that the procedure re : the registration of motor vehicles hero appears to be quite defective and contrary to the practice as prevalent in the u.p., and the attention of the d.i.g. of police is drawn thereto.

Judgment:

ORDER

Atma Charan, J.C.

1. Heard the parties.

2. This is a complainant's application in revision from the order of the trial Court dismissing his complaint against the accused opposite-party under Section 203, Criminal P.C.

3. The case of the complainant is that the accused opposite-party obtained his motor-cycle bearing No. DLA 9705 under a false pretence and that lie then got it registered in his own name with the authorities concerned by dishonestly re-presenting to them that it had been purchased by him in some auction-sale at Delhi. The trial Court held that the dispute between the parties was of a civil nature and, as such, dismissed the complaint straightway under Section 203, Criminal P.C. The complainant has come up in revision from this order of the trial Court to the Court.

4. The trial Court in its order rightly writer to observe that 'dishonest intention is the gist of an offence punishable under Section 406, Penal Code.' It is accordingly just to be seen whether the accused opposite-party had any dishonest intention at the time, or not. The fact that the accused opposite-party got the motor-cycle registered in his own name soon after it had been delivered to him by dishonestly giving impression to the authorities concerned that it had been purchased by him in some auction-sale, any way, goes to show that dishonest intention might have been there and, in the circumstances, the complaint should not have been dismissed straightway but the trial of the case should have been proceeded with under Chedule XXI, Criminal P.C.

5. The application in revision accordingly is allowed, the order of the trial Court dismissing the complaint is set aside and the case is remanded for trial now by Mr. A.P. Dewan with the remark that he is not to get prejudiced one way or the other by any inadvertent observation that might have been made above.

6. It may further be mentioned here that the procedure re : the registration of motor vehicles hero appears to be quite defective and contrary to the practice as prevalent in the U.P., and the attention of the D.I.G. of Police is drawn thereto.