Allahabad High Court
Amar Jeet @ Kaliya Thru. Real ... vs State Of U.P. on 29 November, 2012
Bench: Anurag Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Court No. - 13
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 231 of 2012
Petitioner :- Amar Jeet @ Kaliya Thru. Real Sister Anjali Devi
Respondent :- State Of U.P.
Petitioner Counsel :- Abdul Rafey Siddiqui,Rehan Ahmad Siddiqui
Respondent Counsel :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Anurag Kumar,J.
This is a revision filed by revisionist Amar Jeet @ Kaliya under Section 53 Juvenile Justice Act read with Section 397/401 Cr.P.C against order dated 4.7.2012 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 7, Faizabad, dismissing the application of the revisionist for declaring him juvenile in S.T. No. 22/12 arising out of Case Crime No. 1741 of 2011, under Sections 363/366/368/376 IPC, P.S. Cantt., District Faizabad.
Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned AGA.
Revisionist has challenged the legality of the order dated 4.7.2012 not declaring him a juvenile under Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 which is hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'.
Revisionist moved an application before the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 7 for declaring him a juvenile on the ground of school records, his age was written as 20.4.1994 and on the date of occurrence i.e. 7.9.2011, he was juvenile, as such, he may be declared a juvenile.
After considering the submissions and going through the record, the lower court by his impugned order dated 4.7.2012 rejected the application of the revisionist on the ground that as per police report and Panchayat voter list, revisionist was more than 20 years old.
Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that under the provisions of Rule framed under the Act, Rule 22 prescribed the procedure for determination of the age and according to Rule 22(5) the court should determine the age of a person claiming him to be a juvenile on the basis of this rule only. Court below did not pass the order in accordance with rule 22(5), hence the impugned order not declaring the revisionist a juvenile is illegal and is liable to be set aside.
Learned AGA has opposed the contention and submitted that the court after considering all the evidence on record passed the impugned order and it is according to law.
After giving thoughtful submission to the contention of both the parties, rule 22 U.P. Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2004 prescribed the procedure for determination of age. Rule 22 (5) is as follows:-
(5) ''In every case concerning a juvenile or child, the Board shall either obtain-
(i) a birth certificate given by a corporation or a municipal authority; or
(ii) a date of birth certificate from the school first attended; or
(iii) matriculation or equivalent certificates, if available; and
(iv) in the absence of (i) to (iii) above, the medical opiniion byu a duly constituted Medical Board, subject to a margin og onr yrst, in deserving cases for the reasons to be recorded by such Medical Board, regarding his age; and, when passing orders in such case shall, after taking into consideration such evidence as may be available or the medical opinion, as the case may be, record a finding in respect of his age.'
From the perusal of the above rule, it is clear that for determining the age of any person the first thing which is to be considered is the birth certificate given by corporation or municipal authority. If there is no such certificate, then in that case, the date of birth certificate from the schools, first attended is to be considered and if that is also not available then in that case matriculation or equivalent certificate is to be considered and in absence of all the above three documents medical opinion by a duly constituted medical board regarding age should be considered. As per rule 22(5), the voter list is not to be considered for determining the age of any person claiming him to be a juvenile.
The court below on relying the police report and Panchayat voter list filed along with police report, determined the age of the revisionist and rejected his application while revisionist filed some paper regarding his age from Prathmik Vidyalaya Masinia, Shiksha Kshetra Masodha.
Learned court below should not rely on a voter list, he should consider the duly proved school certificate, if any available on record, and if there is neither any birth certificate nor school certificate nor a matriculation or equivalent certificate then in that case, he should constitute a medical board for determining age of the revisionist and as per provision of rule 22(5) (IV) he should rely on the report of the medical board for determining the age of the revisionist.
In view of the above discussion, it is clear that the impugned order is not according to the provisions of law and is liable to be set aside and accordingly set aside. The court concerned is directed to reconsider the application of revisionist applying the provisions of rule 22(5) of the U.P. Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2004.
Accordingly, revision is allowed.
29.11.2012
Ravi
