1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 19.01.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.SELVAM CRL.R.C.(MD)No.28 of 2011 Viji @ Vijayakumar ..Petitioner/Accused No.2 Vs. State, represented by:: The Inspector of Police, Eral Police Station, Thoothukudi District. (Crime No.539 of 2005) ..Respondent/Complainant PRAYER: Revision filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying to call for the records in Juvenile Case No.33 of 2006 on the file of Principal Judicial Magistrate/Juvenile Justice Board, Tirunelveli, dated 09.11.2009, and expunge the remark of acquittal on the ground of benefit of doubt as that of Honorable acquittal. For Petitioner : Mr.A.Thiruvadikumar For Respondent : Mr.R.M.Anbunithi, Govt. Advocate (Crl.side) J U D G M E N T This Criminal Revision is preferred to call for the records in Juvenile Case No.33 of 2006 on the file of Principal Judicial Magistrate/Juvenile Justice Board, Tirunelveli, dated 09.11.2009, and expunge the remark of acquittal on the ground of benefit of doubt and to alter the same to one of Honourable acquittal. 2.Pursuant to proceedings in Juvenile Case No.33 of 2006, on the file of Principal Judicial Magistrate/Juvenile Justice Board, Tirunelveli, dated 09.11.2009, the board passed judgment on 19.11.2009 finding that the Juveniles before it were not guilty of offences under Sections 342, 323 and 506(i) of IPC which had been alleged to have been committed by them in an occurrence that took place at about 6.45 p.m. on 08.12.2005. In the judgment it had been observed that the State had not proved the guilt of the juvenile beyond reasonable doubt and therefore, they were entitled to benefit of doubt. 3.The petitioner was one of the two juveniles, who were said to be in conflict with law in the said proceedings. The learned counsel for the petitioner informs that the petitioner stands selected to the Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board and the observation of the juvenile justice board affording him the benefit of doubt necessarily has to be set aside in the light of what is stated in Section 19 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. The said section reads as follows: “19. Removal of disqualification attaching to conviction.- (i) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, a https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 Juvenile who has committed an offence and has been dealt with under the provisions of this Act shall not suffer disqualification, if any, attaching to a conviction of an offence under such law. 2) The Board shall made an order directing that the relevant records of such conviction shall be removed after the expiry if the period of appeal or a reasonable period as prescribed under the rules, as the case may be.” 4.The section is clear and unambiguous. When no disqualification can attach to any juvenile who is found to have committed an offence, it would be more so as regards juveniles not found in conflict with law. 5. The Criminal Revision Petition is allowed and the finding of the Lower Court that the petitioner is acquitted on the benefit of doubt shall stand set aside. For purposes of clarity, it is informed that this order may be read as one equivalent to Honourable acquittal. SD DEPUTY REGISTRAR ( ACCOUNTS ) /TRUE COPY/ ASST REGISTRAR am To 1.The Principal Judicial Magistrate Juvenile Justice Board, Tirunelveli. 2.The Inspector of Police, Eral Police Station, Thoothukudi District. 3.The Addl. Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,Madurai. 1CC TO MR. A. THIRUVADIKUMAR,ADVOCATE,S R: 1919: DM:2011:FEBRUARY:01: CRL.R.C.(MD)No.28 of 2011 2P:5C:: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/