- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Ashish Kumar Dixit v. State Of U.P And Others
Judicial Opinion Summary
Factual and Procedural Background
The revisionist, Ashish Kumar Dixit, is an accused in a murder case registered as Crime No. 300 of 1998 at Police Station Nawabganj, Kanpur Nagar. He applied for bail before the Chief Judicial Magistrate (C.M.M.), claiming he was below the age of 16 on the date of the incident and therefore a juvenile. The C.M.M. enquired and, relying on a School Leaving Certificate and a High School Examination Mark-Sheet produced by the revisionist, declared him a juvenile delinquent.
The complainant challenged that result and filed Appeal No. 117 of 1998 before the Sessions Judge, Kanpur Nagar. After hearing counsel, the Sessions Judge set aside the C.M.M.'s order and remanded the matter to the C.M.M. to reconsider the question of the accused's age, directing that the accused and the prosecution be given proper opportunity to adduce evidence. That appellate order was prompted by a report from the Station Officer (S.O.) Nawabganj stating that the Principal of V.S.S. High School, Kaka Deo — the school from which the transfer certificate and mark-sheet had been obtained — reported the revisionist had never been admitted to, nor was he a student of, that school.
Aggrieved by the Sessions Judge's order remanding the enquiry to the C.M.M., the revisionist filed the present revision petition challenging that appellate disposition.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the Appellate Court was justified in calling for and considering material (the S.O.'s report) at the appellate stage that cast doubt on the genuineness of the documents produced before the C.M.M.
- Whether the Appellate Court committed any legal or jurisdictional error by setting aside the C.M.M.'s declaration of the revisionist as a juvenile and remanding the issue of age to the C.M.M. for fresh enquiry with opportunity to both sides to adduce evidence.
Arguments of the Parties
Revisionist's Arguments
- The learned counsel for the revisionist contended that the Appellate Court ought not to have obtained (or acted upon) evidence at the appellate stage, and on the basis of that material should not have remanded the matter for further enquiry by the C.M.M.
No other party arguments are detailed in the provided opinion.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court rejected the revisionist's contention that an Appellate Court may not take into account material which belies the version accepted by the trial court. The court stated that if material comes to the notice of the Appellate Court which casts doubt upon the correctness of the trial court's finding, the Appellate Court may take that material into consideration.
The court further explained that the Sessions Judge had not taken "additional evidence" in the sense of conducting a fresh trial; rather, the Appellate Court had called for a report from the Station Officer to examine and verify whether the dates of birth shown in the transfer certificate and mark-sheet were genuine. That verification, the court observed, was intended to remove doubt and to ensure the correctness of the age-determination.
On this basis the Sessions Judge remitted the matter to the C.M.M. for reconsideration and determination of the accused's age, directing that both the accused/applicant and the prosecution be given proper opportunity to adduce evidence. The revisional court found no legal, jurisdictional, or procedural error in the Sessions Judge hearing the appeal, calling for the report, or ordering remand.
The court also noted that the remand, properly conducted, would not prejudice the revisionist; if the enquiry before the C.M.M. is conducted fairly and the correct position established, the revisionist's interests would not be jeopardised.
Holding and Implications
Revision Dismissed.
Direct effect: The Sessions Judge's order setting aside the C.M.M.'s declaration of the revisionist as a juvenile and remanding the question of age to the C.M.M. for fresh enquiry stands. The C.M.M. is to reconsider and determine the accused's age after giving both the accused and the prosecution proper opportunity to adduce evidence and after verifying the genuineness of the documents in question.
Broader implications: The opinion does not announce or discuss any new legal precedent. It upholds the Appellate Court's power to call for or consider material that casts doubt on trial court findings and to remit matters for fresh enquiry where verification is required.
This summary is based exclusively on the text of the provided opinion and does not add information beyond that text.
Bhagwan Din, J.:— The revisionist, Ashish Kumar Dixit, is an accused in a murder case registered vide crime No. 300 of 1998 at the police station, Nawabganj, Kanpur Nagar. He sought bail before the C.M.M Kanpur Nagar, on the ground that he was below the age of 16 years, on the date of incident and he is thus, a juvenile. The C.M.M, enquired into the matter and on the basis of the School Leaving Certificate and High School Examination Mark-Sheet declared him juvenile delinquent. Against this order the complainant of the case filed an appeal No. 117 of 1998 before the Sessions Judge, Kanpur Nagar, who after hearing the parties' counsel set aside the order of the C.M.M and remanded the matter to the Court of C.M.M to reconsider the entire matter in the right perspective after giving proper opportunity to the accused/applicant and prosecution to adduce their evidence. The order of the Appellate Court is based on the report of S.O Nawabganj, “that Principal of the V.S.S High School, Kaka Deo, from where the transfer Certificate and Mark-Sheet have been obtained and filed by the revisionist, reported that the revisionist had never been admitted nor he was the student of his school.” Feeling aggrieved of this order of remanding the enquiry to the C.M.M the present revision has been filed.
2. The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the revisionist is that the Appellate Court ought to have not obtained evidence at the appellate stage and on the basis of that evidence ought to have not sent the matter for further enquiry by the C.M.M
3. I am unable to agree with the above contention of the learned counsel for the revisionist that in any matter, at any stage, if it is brought to the notice of the Appellate Court that there is material which belies the version of the respondent can not be taken into consideration.
4. In this matter the Appellate Court has not obtained the additional evidence but only called for the report of the S.O Nawabganj to remove the doubt, whether, the date of birth given in the above two papers is genuine or not and to get it examined and verified again.
5. The Appellate Court has remanded the matter to the C.M.M for reconsideration and determination of the age of the accused. I do not find any legal or jurisdictional error, illegality or irregularity in hearing the appeal and making the above order. Besides, the order would not jeopardise the interest of the revisionist, if the enquiry is squarely made and the correct position is thrashed out.
6. For the above reasons, the revision is dismissed summarily.
7. Revision Dismissed.
Alert