Ahasan Khan and Shahzad Khan @ Shahbaz vs State of U.P. and Mahfool

K.N. Ojha, J.—Heard Sri V.C. Mishra learned senior counsel assisted by Sri Vivek Mishra learned Counsel for the accused-applicants, learned AGA and have gone through the record.

Previously Sri Gaurav Kakkar, Advocate appeared for opposite party No. 2 Mahfool, but later on, on the date of argument none appeared for opposite party No. 2 Mahfool.

First Criminal Misc. Application No. 7574 of 2007 was moved by Shahzad Khan @ Shahbaz and Ahasan Khan. Thereafter they filed Criminal Revision No. 1425 of 2007 against order dated 22.3.07 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, court No. 2 Bijnor in S.T. No. 455 of 1991 pending u/s 302/307/120 B IPC, P.S. Nazibabad, district Bijnor but both these cases were dismissed after hearing the learned Counsel for the applicants or revisionist who are applicants in this case. Thereafter this Second Application u/s 482 Cr.PC has been moved before this Court to quash order dated 22.3.07. In Criminal Misc. Application No. 7574 of 2007 accused Shahzad Khan @ Shahbaz had challenged order dated 22.3.07 that Addl. Sessions Judge, court No. 2, Bijnor had no jurisdiction to pass order as to whether Shahzad and Ahasan Khan appellants were juvenile or not and therefore the order dated 22.3.07 whereby the applicants were declared to be not juvenile, be set aside. Their application was rejected by this Court on 8.5.07, on the ground that the learned Sessions Judge, Bijnor had transferred the case to the court of Addl. Sessions Judge, court No. 2, when order was passed and therefore there was no jurisdictional error and impugned order dated 22.3.07 could not be set aside on that ground. But while disposing of first application u/s 482 Cr.PC it was observed by this Court in Criminal Misc. application No. 7574 of 2007 on 8.5.07 that the order was being passed in respect of jurisdiction only and not on merit of order dated 22.3.09 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, court No. 2 Bijnor. Now this application u/s 482 Cr.PC has been moved to quash order dated 22.3.07 on the ground of merit.

Threefold arguments have been advanced by learned Counsel for the applicants. Firstly that it is the provision of Juvenile Justice (Care And Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred as an Act,2000) which will apply to the case of the applicants and not Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred as an Act, 1986). According to the applicants Section 20 of the Act, 2000 is retrospective and therefore the age of the accused-applicants on the date of the occurrence is to be considered as to whether they had completed the age of 18 years or not. Secondly it is argued that full fledged enquiry was not made by the Addl. Sessions Judge, court No. 2 in respect of applicants and thirdly it is school paper which is to be relied on in comparison to the certificate given by the Doctor about the age of the accused or papers of Municipal Board etc.

Before dealing with above three points of arguments advanced by learned senior counsel for the applicants it would be proper to give a brief description of the fact of the case.

According to the prosecution Mahfooz resident of village Pathanpura, Town and Police Station Nazibabad, district Bijnor lodged FIR on 17.4.91 at 10.05 a.m. u/s 147/148/149/324/307/302 IPC at Police Station Nazibabad, district Bijnor against five persons including applicants Ahasan Khan and Shahzad Khan @ Shahbaz containing the fact that FIR was lodged against his father Mahboob in which his father and co-accused persons were enlarged on bail by the High Court of Allahabad, nursing that bad blood on 17.4.91 at about 8.45 a.m. his father Mahboob, he himself and his brother Yusuf @ Pahari alongwith his brother Mahmood @ Buddhu, Qayyum and Maqsood were returning after offering namaz (prayer) of Idd, when they reached in front of the house of Babu in Mohallah Pathanpura, Yusuf Pehalwan @ Genda, applicant Shahzad @ Shahbaz, Munnu came on the way surrounded these persons, Munnu and Ahasan caused injuries to Mahmood @ Buddhu who fell down on the spot. Shahzad @ Shahbaz and Yusuf Pehalwan @ Genda- caused injuries with knife, Shahzad @ Shahbaz caused injuries to Maqsood and Shahnawaz his brother. On alarm Shareef, Meenu, Tauseef @ Munna came on the spot and made challenge Mahmood @ Buddhu and Qayyum brothers of the informant died in the incident. Maqsood and Yusuf suffered serious injuries.

After the FIR was lodged investigation started, charge sheet was submitted in the case. Case was committed to the court of Sessions and Sessions Trial No. 495 of 1991 is pending in the trial court since 1991. It is said that the statements of some prosecution witnesses have been recorded. On 14.3.07 application was moved by the applicants in the court of Sessions Judge, Bijnor in S.T. No. 495 of 1991 that on the date of alleged occurrence on 17.4.91 Shahzad Khan @ Shahbaz and Ahasan Khan were minor because date of birth of Ahasan Khan is 15.8.74 and date of birth of Shahzad Khan @ Shahbaz is 8.6.75 hence prayer was made that since they were juvenile therefore their cases be not tried alongwith co-accused persons and their cases be transferred to the Juvenile court. After the application was moved 15.3.07, 16.3.07, 19.3.07 and 22.3.07 was fixed and on 22.3.07 impugned order was passed. It was held that provision of Act, 2000 is not retrospective in respect of Section 2 (1) which defines the age. It was held that Shahzad Khan and Ahasan Khan were not juvenile on the date of occurrence. The School Certificate filed by them was not reliable and it was medical examination report and other papers which were worthy to be relied on.

The learned Addl. Sessions Judge concerned placed reliance on Bhola Bhagat v. Prabhu Nath Prasad AIR 1998 SC 236; Vikas Sharma v. State of U.P. 2006 (3) JIC 605 Alld; Ravinder Singh Gorkhi v. State of U.P. 2006 (3) JIC 742(SC); Daya Chand v. Sahab Singh 1991 CAR 127(SC) and he also dealt with the provisions of Act, 1986 and Act, 2000 in detail. Act, 1986 Section 2 (h) provides that "Juvenile means a boy who has not attained the age of 16 years or a girl who has not attained the age of 18 years". This age was amended by Act, 2000 Section 2 (k) which provides that "Juvenile or Child means a person who has not completed 18 years of age". In Arnit Das Vs. State of Bihar, it was held by Division Bench of Hon''ble the Apex Court that age of the juvenile is to be determined when the accused is produced before the competent authority and not the date of the commission of the offence but in Pratap Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand and Another, it was held by larger bench of Hon''ble the Apex Court that it is the commission of the offence and not the date when the accused is produced before the competent authority or court on which the age of the accused is to be considered. It was further held that the law laid down in the above mentioned Arnit Das case did not hold good law.

Thus the position of law is clear that it is on 17.4.91 which is the date for consideration of the age in this case when the offence is said to have been committed by the applicants.

Learned senior counsel for the applicants has placed reliance on Umesh Chandra Vs. State of Rajasthan, wherein it has been held that entries in school register and admission form regarding date of birth constitute good proof of age. There is no legal requirement that the public or other official book should be kept only by a Public Officer but all that is required u/s 35 of the Evidence Act is that it should be regularly kept in discharge of official duty. In the cited case entries in the school register were made ante litem motam. Moreover, the school where the documents were maintained was an English Public School enjoying good reputation of authenticity and the record maintained by it was unpeachable and authentic and could not be suspected or assumed to be tampered with. At the time when the age of the appellant in the cited case was first mentioned in the admission form there was absolutely no dispute about date of birth or for that matter the exact date on which he was born and there could not have been any motive on the part of the parents of the accused to give a false date of birth because it was his first admission to a school at a very early age. It was further observed that it is also not uncommon for parents some time to change the age of their children. In order to get some material benefit either for appearing in the examination or for entering a particular service which would be denied to a child as under the original date of birth he would be either under age or ineligible.

2005 (1) AAR 356 1IC Tinku and Gopal v. State of U.P. has been cited wherein it has been held by another bench of this Court that refusal to accept school certificate and mark sheet because photostat copy thereof were filed and not original certified copies, was not proper and according to the medical certificate there was permissible margin of two years therefore direction was issued to the trial court to conduct enquiry and thereafter pass order.

In instant case photostat copy of Transfer Certificate issued from M.G.M. Inter College, Nazibabad, Bijnor was filed by Ahasan Khan in which date of birth of Ahasan Khan is mentioned 15.8.74, he passed his Class-VI in the year 1984; Class- VII in the year 1985; Class- VIII in the year 1986; Class- IX in the year 1987 but failed in Class-X in the year 1988. Registration No. of High School Examination of the year 1989 is 346550. Ahasan Khan filed phtostat copy of High School mark sheet of the year 1989 showing that his Roll. No. was 346550. Mark sheet shows that he did not appear in any paper in. Hindi, English, Math and Social Science. He did not appear in any written examination in Science and Biology. He appeared only in practical examination of Science and Biology. The mark sheet does not contain the date of birth of the applicant Ahasan Khan. So far applicant Shahzad @ Shahbaz Khan is concerned he filed phtostat copy of Transfer Certificate issued by Saraswati Inter College, Nazibabad, Bijnor in which 8.6.75 is mentioned as date of birth of the applicant Shahzad Khan @ Shahbaz Khan. It is also written that he passed Class-VI in the year 1985; Class-VII in the year 1986; Class-VIII in the year 1987 and he failed in Class-IX. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge concerned held that applicant Ahasan Khan was admittedly above 16 years of age at the time of occurrence. He further held that certified copy of the Transfer Certificate shows that his date of birth is mentioned 8.6.75 but photostat copy of Birth Certificate filed by the prosecution revealed that his date of birth was 2.3.73. Shahzad Khan @ Shahbaz was medically examined by Dr. Dharam Prakash Arora, Medical Officer, PHC, Nazibabad on 31.7.88 and according to him applicant was 15 years of age. This report was proved by Dr. Dharam Prakash Arora in another S.T. No. 2 of 1979 in the court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Bijnor and this fact was not denied that his medical examination was got done and in S.T. No. 2 of 1979 Dr. Dharam Prakash Arora was examined and stated that he was 15 years of age in July, 1988. It means according to Doctor applicant was more than 17 years of age at the time of alleged occurrence of this case. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge concerned further observed that there is a tendency of the parents to record lesser age in school register and reliance was placed on 1991 CAR 127 SC it was also observed that School Certificate or Transfer Certificate which was filed was not very reliable as original registers were not proved according to Section 35 of the Evidence Act and reliance was placed on 2006 (3) JIC 605 Alld. Vikash Sharma v. State of U.P.

In this case according to papers Ahasan was more than 16 years on the date of alleged occurrence. The papers which were filed by another applicant accused Shahzad Khan @ Shahbaz was prepared by a local school and he did not even passed Class-IX. The certificate of High School which contains the age of a boy has greater sanctity in comparison to the date of birth which was mentioned by a local school. No evidence was adduced before the Addl. Sessions Judge that in any admission form of primary school or in the Transfer Certificate of Primary school or in the admission form of Class -VI. Dated 8.6.75 was the date of birth of Shahzad Khan @ Shahbaz Khan and it was mentioned by the guardian. Any register containing admission form or register showing attendance of Shahzad Khan @ Shahbaz Khan in Class VI to Class -IX was not produced before the court to prove that 8.6.75 was his date of birth. When Shahzad Khan @ Shahbaz Khan faced S.T. No. 2 of 1979 and he was medically examined by Dr. Arora on 31.7.88. FIR of this case was not in existence. So it cannot be said that prosecution was interested in any way for declaration of higher age of Shahzad Khan @ Shahbaz Khan on the date of occurrence of this case.

Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act contemplates that:

Relevancy of entry public record made in performance of duty.

An entry in any public or other official book, register or record, stating a fact in issue or relevant fact, and made by a public servant in the discharge of his official duty, or by any other person in performance of a duty specially enjoined by the law of the country in which such book, register or record is kept, is itself a relevant fact.

Thus if an entry is to be relied register or record is to be produced some official Principal or Teacher or Clerk of the educational institution is to be examined who maintains such register and only thereafter it can be said that the date of birth written in such Transfer Certificate is correct date of birth. Even affidavit of any official of school was not filed by Shahzad @ Shahbaz Khan to show as who prepared the school certificate and whether it was genuine photostat copy of Transfer Certificate which was produced by him in the court.

In these circumstances, if the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, concerned has relied on the certificate issued by the Doctor and Executive Officer of Municipal Board, Nazibabad, there appears no illegality in the order. In the papers of Municipal Board date of birth is mentioned 2.3.73. It is submitted by learned AGA that in register of birth name of the child is not written as immediately after the birth a child is not named. It has not been submitted by learned senior counsel for the applicants that any application was moved by the applicant to summon any Principal or Teacher or Clerk of the school to prove the register or entry of which photostat copy was filed before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, concerned.

In this case the Session Trial started in the year 1991 about 16 years passed away when application was moved for declaring the applicants juvenile. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge concerned observed that the application was moved to delay the disposal of the case. If an accused comes with a plea that he has to prove his case and if he has to summon any register or official he has to move application for it specifying the name of the official or register so that such witness or documents may be summoned and evidence may be adduced, but no such application was moved before the learned Addl. Sessions concerned. Photostat copy of the Transfer Certificate which has been filed by the applicants has not the sanctity of the High School Certificate in respect of which documents are sent to the Education Board where Comparative Chart is prepared and in consolidated register date of birth and other particulars of a large number of students are mentioned. This entry is not done at local level which excludes the possibility of any entry being forged or changed with a particular motive. In this case neither any register was summoned nor any witness was summoned to prove the school papers nor copy of any attendance register was filed to show that applicant Shahzad @ Shahbaz Khan was a regular student and date of birth certificate was issued after proper verification.

In these circumstances considering the nature of the paper alleged to have been issued by the School and there being no evidence that it is prepared on the basis of a Register which was being properly maintained by the school authorities, there appears no illegality or injustice being caused if the learned Addl. Sessions Judge concerned has relied on the certificate issued by Doctor in earlier Sessions Trial pending against the accused Shahzad @ Shahbaz Khan and Municipal Board record. According to the Doctor and Municipal Board certificate Shahzad @ Shahbaz Kahn was also above 16 years of age at the time of alleged occurrence. Thus both the applicants were above 16 years of age at the time of alleged occurrence.

Now question arises as to whether it is the age of 18 or 16 years which -will be taken to be the age of juvenile in this case.

The learned senior counsel for the applicants has submitted that in this case the applicants were juvenile because they were less than 18 years on the date of the alleged occurrence and Section 20 of the Act, 2000 has retrospective effect.

It has been held by the Constitution Bench of Hon''ble the Apex Court in 2005 (3) SCC 554] Pratap Singh v. State of Jharkhand and Ors. that the reckoning date for the determination of the age of the juvenile is the date of an offence and not the date when he is produced before the authority or in the court. It was also held that 2000, Act would be applicable to those cases initiated and pending trial/enquiry for the offences committed under the 1986,Act provided the person had not completed 18 years of age when the Juvenile Justice (Care And Protection of Children)Act, 2000 came into force. It was further held by the Hon''ble the Apex Court in this case that 2000, Act is prospective in its operation. However, it has repealed the 1986, Act. The 2000, Act intends to give protection only to a juvenile within the meaning of the said Act and not an adult. Thus it would apply to a person who is still a juvenile and has not attained the age of 18 years but shall not apply to a person who has already attained the age of 18 years on the date of coming into force, whereof or had not attained the age of 18 years on the date of commission of the offence but has since ceased to be a juvenile. It was made clear in this judgement that the embargo of giving a retrospective effect to a statute arises only when it takes away vested right of a person. Section 20 of the 2000, Act does not take away any such vested right. It makes an additional protection to juvenile. Thus the act is not retrospective.

Section 20 of the 2000, Act contemplates as below:

Special provision in respect of pending cases- Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, all proceedings in respect of a juvenile pending in any Court in any area on the date on which this Act comes into force in that and shall be continued in that Court as if this Act had not been passed and if the Court finds that the juvenile has committed an offence, it shall record such finding and instead of passing any sentence in respect of the juvenile, forward the juvenile to the Board which shall pass orders in respect of that juvenile in accordance with the provisions of this Act as if it had been satisfied on inquiry under this Act that a juvenile has committed the offence:

[Provided that the Board may, for any adequate and special reason to be mentioned in the order, review the case and pass appropriate order in the interest of such juvenile.

Explanation:- In all pending cases including trial, revision, appeal or any other criminal proceedings in respect of a juvenile in conflict with law, in any Court, the determination of juvenility of such a juvenile shall be in terms of Clause (I) of Section 2, even if the juvenile ceases to be so on or before the date of commencement of this Act and the provisions of this Act shall apply as if the said provisions had been in force, for all purposes and at all material times when the alleged offence was committed.]

In this case the offence is said to have been committed on 17.4.91. It is not denied that when the 2000, Act came into force the applicants were not minor. Thus the applicants are not entitled to the benefit of Section 20 of 2000, Act. They were above 16 years of age and their age would be considered under the 1986, Act. Thus they were not juvenile on the date of the alleged occurrence. Clause (1) of Section 20 of the 2000, Act is clear that only for the purposes of passing sentence the provision of the 2000, Act will be applicable, but for rest of the purposes it will be taken that the 2000, Act has not been passed.

Thus in the opinion of this Court the learned Addl. Sessions Judge concerned has committed no illegality in passing impugned order and holding that the applicants were not juvenile on the date of occurrence.

When the occurrence did take place in April, 1991 about 17 years before the charges were framed, no application for declaration of juvenile was moved prior to the year 2007 and even when application was moved in the year 2007 no sufficient evidence was adduced. It would not be proper to make direction to further make enquiry which will linger the proceedings of the Sessions Trial.

In view of above discussions, this Court is of the opinion that the application moved u/s 482 Cr.PC deserves to be dismissed.

Application moved by accused-applicants Ahasan Khan and Shahzad Khan @ Shahbaz u/s 482 Cr.PC for quashing the impugned order dated 22.3.07 is rejected.