Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:83100 Court No. - 82 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1648 of 2025 Revisionist :- Rajbeer Sharma Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Rajesh Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Manjive Shukla,J. 1. Heard Sri Rajesh Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the revisionist and learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State. 2. This Court vide order dated 09.04.2025 had issued notice to Opposite Parties No. 2 & 3 but in spite of service of notice, no one is present on their behalf. 3. The instant criminal revision has been filed challenging therein, the order dated 19.12.2024 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad in Criminal Misc. Case No. 723 of 2024 (Rajbir Sharma Vs. State of U.P. and Others) whereby, the appeal filed by the revisionist under Section 101 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred as "the Act of 2015"), had been dismissed for non-prosecution. 4. The revisionist through this revision has also challenged the order dated 18.01.2025, whereby the learned Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad had rejected the application filed by the revisionist for recall of the order dated 19.12.2024. 5. It has been contended on behalf of the revisionist that the F.I.R. No. 330 of 2018 had been registered in Police Station Niwari, District Ghaziabad under Section 302 I.P.C. The application was filed on behalf of the accused before the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Ghaziabad for declaring the accused as juvenile and that application had been allowed vide order dated 19.09.2019 whereby, the accused had been declared to be juvenile. The Section 101 of the Act of 2015 provides a remedy of appeal against the order passed by the learned Juvenile Justice Board. The revisionist filed an appeal, under Section 101 of the Act of 2015 along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the appeal, before the learned Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad. 6. It has further been contended that the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing this appeal, was allowed vide order dated 08.11.2024 but later on, the appeal had been dismissed for non-prosecution. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the revisionist has argued that from bare perusal of the impugned orders dated 19.12.2024 and 18.01.2025, it is apparent that the learned counsel for the appellant was not present before the court only on five dates i.e. on 18.11.2024, 25.11.2024, 03.12.2024, 11.12.2024 & 19.12.2024 and on that basis, the appeal had been dismissed for want of prosecution, though during the aforesaid dates, there was a general call for strike by the Bar Association of Ghaziabad. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the revisionist has further argued that even otherwise it is a well-settled proposition of law through catena of judgements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the appeal cannot be dismissed for want of prosecution. Learned counsel appearing for the revisionist, in support of his arguments, has relied on the judgements rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Sakunthala Vs. State Rep. by the Inspector of Police (Criminal Appeal No. 474 of 2020), Shankar Vs. The State of Maharashtra (Criminal Appeal No. 1106 of 2019) & K. Muruganandam & Ors. Vs. State Rep. By the Deputy Superintendent of Police & Anr. (Crl. Appeal No. 809 of 2021). 9. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State, though tried to defend the orders impugned in this criminal revision but could not justify the dismissal of the appeal for non- prosecution. 10. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsels appearing for the parties and have perused the documents annexed with this criminal revision. 11. I find that the learned Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad had rejected the revisionist's appeal for non-prosecution on the ground that on five dates i.e. on 18.11.2024, 25.11.2024, 03.12.2024, 11.12.2024 & 19.12.2024, no one had appeared on behalf of the appellant. During the period of the aforesaid dates, there was some disturbance in the District Court, Ghaziabad and lawyers were abstaining from work. Even otherwise, this Court is of the view that the appeal, normally should not be dismissed for non- prosecution. 12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in its judgements rendered in the cases of Sakunthala Vs. State Rep. by the Inspector of Police (Criminal Appeal No. 474 of 2020), Shankar Vs. The State of Maharashtra (Criminal Appeal No. 1106 of 2019) & K. Muruganandam & Ors. Vs. State Rep. By the Deputy Superintendent of Police & Anr. (Crl. Appeal No. 809 of 2021) had categorically held that the appeal should not be dismissed for non-prosecution. 13. In view of the aforesaid reasons, this criminal revision is allowed. The orders dated 19.12.2024 & 18.01.2025, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad in Criminal Misc. Case No. 723 of 2024 (Rajbir Sharma Vs. State of U.P. and Others), are hereby set-aside. The matter is remanded to the learned Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad to consider and decide the appeal filed by the revisionist under Section 101 of the Act of 2015 by passing a speaking and reasoned order on merits. Order Date :- 13.5.2025 A. Mandhani Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK MANDHANI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad