Mahboob Ahmad vs State of U.P.

D.P Pradhan, J.

In this revision directed against the order dated 6.8.91 passed by the Sessions Judge, Bijnor in Sessions Trial No. 12 of 1991, State v. Ayub Ahmad and others, the short point for consideration is if the case against the accusedrevisionist has to be heard by the Sessions Judge, Bijnor or by the Juvenile Court at Bijnor. With the consent of the learned Counsel of the parties, the revision has been heard on merits, I proceed to decide the same accordingly.

Section 2 (h) of the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 defines a juvenile to mean a boy who has not attained the age of sixteen years. It was represented before the Sessions Judge, Bijnor that the revisionist was only 15 years of age on 1.8.90 and, therefore, this case had to be heard by the Juvenile Court. By means of the impugned order the Sessions Judge rejected this request on the ground that the revisionist appeared to be a major.

It has been contended on behalf of the revisionist that the bail to this accused who is revisionist before us for the offence under Section 302, I.P.C. which forms the subjectmatter of Sessions Trial No. 12 of 1991 was granted on the ground that he was a juvenile on the date of offence. Likewise it was further contended that the date of birth of the revisionist is 1.8.75 and documentary evidence was also produced in this behalf but the learned Sessions Judge observed that the accused revisionist appeared to be major.

A perusal of the impugned order indicates that the learned Sessions Judge simply made a visual observation and eame to the conclusion that the accused revisionist appeared to be a major. It was on this premises that the request made on behalf of the accused revisionist was rejected by him and it was directed that he would be tried along with others accused persons.

It may be pointed out that the scheme of the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 is such that even if a juvenile accused ceases to be such during the pendency of the case, the proceedings of the case have to be contained as if such accused had continued to be a juvenile. Reference maybe made to Section 3 of the Act in this behalf.

Once the question regarding the age of the revisionist had been raised before the learned Sessions Judge, it was incumbent upon him to make a proper inquiry as to what was his age and for that purpose he would have taken such evidence as might be considered necessary by him. He could also get the revisionist subjected to medical examination for determination of his age. The determination of age in the manner done by the learned Sessions Judge, to say that least, is most unsatisfactory. Merely on visual appearance the learned Sessions Judge could not record the finding regarding the age of the revisionist so as to conclude if he was a juvenile on the relevant date. It may be pointed out that the relevant date for the purpose of the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 is the date of offence. In view of Section 24 of the said Act, no juvenile shall be charged with or tried for any offence together with a person who is not a juvenile. In the circumstances, the plea raised on behalf of the revisionist that he was a juvenile and, therefore, his case had to be separated from others and heard by Juvenile Court required proper examination and determination at the hands of the learned Sessions Judge. As already indicated earlier, the finding recorded by the learned Sessions Judge with regard to the age of the revisionist by means of the impugned order cannot be sustained in this revision. This revision is accordingly allowed and the impugned order dated 6.8.91 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bijnor in Sessions Trial No. 12 of the 1991 whereby the accused revisionist was found to be major on visual appearance and directed to be tried with other accused persons is set aside. The learned Sessions Judge will make a proper inquiry regarding the age of the accused revisionist and take such evidence as may be considered necessary by him in this behalf including the medical examination of the accused revisionist by the Chief Medical Officer. If after such inquiry, the accused revisionist is found to be juvenile on the date of offence, his case has to be separated from other accused persons and dealt with by a Juvenile Court.

Revision allowed.