AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
7 paragraphs · 386 wordsB.K. Patel, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsel for the State.
This revision is directed against the order dated 12.6.2006 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C., Bhadrak in S.T. No. 20/ 77 of 2004 rejecting the petitioner''s application for treating him as a juvenile under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (for short ''the Act'').
Petitioner and his father are facing trial for commission of offence u/s 376 I.P.C. and other offences alleged to have been committed during the years 1997 to 2000. Referring to the evidence of D.W.1 Headmaster In-charge of Baidyanath Nodal School, Bangalisahi it is strenuously contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the date of birth of the petitioner being 27.6.1984, he is required to be dealt with in accordance with the Act. Learned Additional Sessions Judge erroneously held that the petitioner was not a juvenile during the period of occurrence. Learned Counsel for the petitioner places strong reliance on the decision in Rambir Singh and Ors. v. State of U.P. (2010) 45 OCR (SC) 205.
In the above cited decision a question of juvenility of one of the appellants was raised and accepted after conviction and his case was forwarded to the Juvenile Justice Board for passing appropriate orders in terms of Section 15 of the Act read with Rule 98 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007. In holding that the said appellant was a juvenile on the date of commission of the offence, entry in the certificate of the Higher School Examination was relied upon. In the present case, D.W.1 the Head Master in-charge of the School has categorically stated that in the School Admission Register petitioner''s date of birth has been entered as 27.6.1984. Therefore, it is evident that the petitioner was a juvenile during the period of occurrence.
In view of the above, it is directed that the case of the petitioner be transmitted to the concerned Juvenile Justice Board for proceeding with the inquiry in accordance with the provisions of the Act from the stage at which the proceeding was stayed by order dated 8.5.2006 passed in this revision.
The revision is accordingly allowed.
Urgent certified copy of the order be granted on proper application.