Arun Lahoti and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.

- 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. - it is well settled that any person aggrieved by an order of an inferior criminal court is given the option to approach either the sessions judge or the high court and once he exercises the option he is precluded from invoking the revisional jurisdiction of the other authority......moved an application under section 204, cr.p.c. thereby raising certain objections. the learned trial court after considering the objections and hearing both the parties concluded that all the objections raised by the petitioners are the factual matrix, which could be decided only after recording the evidence and accordingly dismissed the petitioners' application vide order dated 16.8.2003. feeling dissatisfied with the above order, the petitioners preferred revision petition before the court of sessions. the learned revisional court was of the view that making observations on the merits at this stage would adversely affect the case of either party. otherwise also, in the opinion of the revisional court, the application filed under section 204, cr.p.c. after taking cognizance of the offence was not maintainable because the trial court was not competent to review or recall its order in view of the law propounded by the apex court in neelniani rawat v. benet colmen company, : (1998)8scc594 .2. in my view, once the matter has already been examined by the revisional court, the petitioner cannot be permitted to raise it again in second revision by resorting to the provisions of section 482, cr.p.c. in my considered view, inherent powers of this court under section 482 cannot be utilised as a substitute for second revision. the object of section 397(3) is clear. it is to prevent a multiple exercise of revisional powers and to secure early finality to orders. it is well settled that any person aggrieved by an order of an inferior criminal court is given the option to approach either the sessions judge or the high court and once he exercises the option he is precluded from invoking the revisional jurisdiction of the other authority. in the case at hand the petitioners has already availed the remedy of revision before the sessions court and, therefore, as stated above the inherent powers of this court cannot be invoked as a substitute for second revision. i am.....