Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
1 2025:HHC:29473 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Revision No. : 4017 of 2013 Decided on
: 29.08.2025 Keshav Joshi & Another …Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh …Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the petitioners : Mr.
Rajesh
Mandhotra, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. Tejasvi Sharma, Additional Advocate General, and Ms. Ranjna
Patial,
Deputy Advocate General. Virender Singh, Judge
(oral) Petitioners have preferred the present criminal revision, against the judgment, dated 30th April, 2013, passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge I, Kangra at Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Appellate Court’), in 1 Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
2 2025:HHC:29473 Criminal Appeal No. 29B/2008, titled as Keshav Joshi & Another versus State of Himachal Pradesh.
2. Vide judgment, dated 30th April, 2013, the learned Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioners, against the judgment of conviction, dated 23rd May, 2008 and order of sentence, dated 24th May, 2008, passed by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Baijnath, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as the ‘trial Court’) in Criminal Case No.21II/2007, titled as State versus Keshav Joshi & Another.
3. The learned trial Court, vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence, as referred to above, has convicted petitioner Keshav Joshi for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’), and Section 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the M.V. Act’) and petitioner Bal Krishan has been convicted, for the offence punishable under Section 180 of the M.V. Act, and sentenced them, as under:
1. Keshav Joshi
3 2025:HHC:29473 (i) For the offence punishable under Section 279 IPC, he has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay a fine of 1000/. In ₹ default of payment of fine, he has been
directed to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month; (ii) For the offence punishable under Section 337 IPC, the convict has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month and to pay a fine of 500/. In ₹ default of payment of fine, he has been
directed to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of fifteen days; (iii) For the offence punishable under Section 338 IPC, he has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of 1000/.In default of ₹ payment of fine, he has been directed to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months; and For the offence punishable under Section 181 M.V.Act, he has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay a fine of 500/. In default ₹ of payment of fine, he has been directed to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of fifteen days. The learned trial Court has directed the sentences, so awarded, to run concurrently. 2. Bal Krishan For the offence punishable under Section 180 M.V. Act, he has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month and to pay a fine of ₹ 500/. In default of
4 2025:HHC:29473 payment of fine, he has been directed to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of fifteen days. 4. During the pendency of the criminal revision, before this Court, application bearing Cr.MP No.2422 of 2024, was moved, which was decided on 16.10.2024, by holding that at the time of commission of the alleged crime, petitioner No.1 was juvenile. Order dated 16.10.2024, is reproduced as under: During the pendency of the present revision, the applicants/petitioners filed an application to place on record the date of birth certificate of petitioner No.1 to show that petitioner No.1 was juvenile on the date of the commission of the offence and his date of birth is 24.08.1989. 2. The State has filed a reply/status report asserting that the date of birth of petitioner No.1 was not found registered in the record of Gram Panchayat and the authenticity of the date of birth recorded in the matriculation certificate was verified from H.P. Board of School Education. As per the record maintained by the Board of School Education, petitioner No.1 was born on 24.08.1989. The documents in support of the status report have also been annexed. Thus, it is duly established at this stage that petitioner No.1 was a juvenile on the date of the incident.
It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Karan v. State of M.P. (2023) 5 SCC 504: 2023 SCC OnLine SC 217 that a trial conducted and conviction recorded by the Competent Court will not be vitiated even though the person is subsequently found to be a child in conflict with the law. The legislature intends to grant the benefit regarding the
5 2025:HHC:29473 sentence and not regarding the conviction. It was observed at page 520:
“34. There is another reason why a trial conducted and conviction recorded by the Sessions Court would not be held to be vitiated in law even though subsequently the person tried has been held to be a child. 35. The intention of the legislature was to give benefit to a person who is declared to be a child on the date of the offence only with respect to its sentence part. If the conviction was also to be made ineffective then either the jurisdiction of regular Sessions Court would have been completely excluded not only under Section 9 of the 2015 Act but also under Section 25 of the 2015 Act, provision would have been made that on a finding being recorded that the person being tried is a child, a pending trial should also be relegated to the JJB and also that such trial would be held to be null and void. Instead, under Section 25 of the 2015 Act, it is clearly provided that any proceeding pending before any Board or court on the date of commencement of the 2015 Act shall be continued in that Board or court as if this Act had not been enacted. 36. Section 25 of the 2015 Act is reproduced hereunder:
“25. Special provision in respect of pending cases. —
Notwithstanding
anything contained in this Act, all proceedings in respect of a child alleged or found to be in conflict with law pending before any Board or court on the date of commencement of this Act, shall be continued in that Board or court as if this Act had not been enacted.”
37.
Having considered the statutory provisions laid down in Section 9 of the 2015 Act and also Section 7A of the 2000 Act
6 2025:HHC:29473 which is identical to Section 9 of the 2015 Act, we are of the view that the merits of the conviction could be tested and the conviction which was recorded cannot be held to be vitiated in law merely because the inquiry was not conducted by JJB. It is only the question of sentence for which the provisions of the 2015 Act would be attracted and any sentence in excess of what is permissible under the 2015 Act will have to be accordingly amended as per the provisions of the 2015 Act. Otherwise, the accused who has committed a heinous offence and who did not claim juvenility before the trial court would be allowed to go scotfree. This is also not the object and intention provided in the 2015 Act. The object under the 2015 Act dealing with the rights and liberties of the juvenile is only to ensure that if he or she could be brought into the mainstream by awarding a lesser sentence and also directing for other facilities for the welfare of the juvenile in conflict with law during his stay in any of the institutions defined under the 2015 Act.”
3. Thus, the benefit of juvenility will only extend to the sentence and not to the conviction. 4. In view of the same, the matter be listed for the final hearing to determine whether the conviction was legally recorded, correctly upheld, the sentence was legally imposed and if not what would be the appropriate sentence. The present application stands disposed of.”
5.
In view of the order dated 16.10.2024, passed in Cr.MP No. 2422 of 2024, (supra) learned counsel for the petitioners has stated that the petitioners do not press the
7 2025:HHC:29473 present criminal revision against the judgment of conviction and prayed that the order of sentence may kindly be modified. 6. Since, petitioner No.1, at the time of commission of crime, was juvenile, as such, he is entitled to the benefit of juvenility, in the matter of sentence, and in view of the provisions of Section 15(1)(d) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the JJ Act’), in case, it has been found that the juvenile has committed an offence, then, he or his parents could be directed to pay fine. Section 15(1) (d) of the JJ Act, is reproduced as under: (d) order the parent of the juvenile or the juvenile himself to pay a fine, if he is over fourteen years of age and earns money;
7. In view of the above provisions, when, petitioner No.1, is held to be juvenile, then, he can be sentenced to pay a fine, and he cannot be directed to undergo the sentence of imprisonment, as ordered by the learned trial Court, in this case. The fine amount already stands deposited, by petitioner No.1, as such, no sentence is to be imposed against him. Ordered accordingly. Petitioner
8 2025:HHC:29473 No.1, is also held entitled to the benefit under Section 19 of the JJ Act. 8. So far as petitioner No.2, who has been sentenced for a period of one month and to pay a fine of Rs.500/ and in default of payment of fine, he has been
directed to further undergo simple imprisonment for fifteen days, is concerned, by taking a lenient view about the fact that he has been convicted for the commission of offence punishable under the M.V. Act, instead of directing him to undergo simple imprisonment of one month, he is directed to pay a fine of Rs.1000/, within a period of four days, in the Registry of this Court. In case the amount of fine is deposited, Registry is directed to send the same to the learned trial Court to be deposited under the proper head.
9. With these observations, the criminal revision is
disposed of. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also disposed of accordingly.
( Virender Singh ) Judge August 29, 2025 ( ps )