Delhi High Court

Radhey Shyam vs State on 9 September, 2010

Author: Hima Kohli

*             IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+            Crl.Rev.P. No.528/2009 & Crl.MA No.10977/2009


                                                 Reserved on : 12.08.2010
                                                 Pronounced on: 09.09.2010
IN THE MATTER OF :
RADHEY SHYAM                                          ..... Petitioner
                               Through: Mr. Anand Mishra and
                               Mr.J.P.Singh, Advocates

                   versus

STATE                                               ..... Respondents
                               Through: Mr. M.N.Dudeja, APP for the State.
                               Mr.Varun Goswami, Advocate for Complainant.

CORAM

* HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI

     1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may
        be allowed to see the Judgment?                      Yes

     2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?               Yes

     3. Whether the judgment should be
        reported in the Digest?                              Yes

HIMA KOHLI, J.

1. The petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 25.7.2009 passed

by the learned ASJ, Rohini Court, Delhi, holding inter alia that he is not a

juvenile, as defined by the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children)

Act, 2000 (for short `the Act'). Before dealing with the submissions of the

counsels for the parties, it is necessary to cull out the backdrop of the

matter, as the case has a chequered history.

2. On 8.9.2005, the petitioner was arrested along with one

Sh.Jaipal Singh for commission of an offence punishable under Sections

392/302/411/34 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act, in respect of an FIR

No.797/2005 lodged by Sh.Puneet Vasudev, son of the deceased victim,

Smt. Promila Vasudeva, registered with PS Prashant Vihar, Delhi. After the

investigation was completed, a charge sheet was filed in the Court of the

learned MM, who in turn, committed the matter for trial to the Sessions

Court on 7.1.2006. After a period of 8 months, on 20.9.2006, the petitioner

filed an application for transfer of his case to the Juvenile Court claiming

himself to be a juvenile. In support of the application, the petitioner

enclosed a photocopy of the scholar's register of Adarsh Janta Vidyalaya,

Salempur, Khutiana, Firozabad(U.P.) showing his date of birth as

28.11.1988. The IO was directed to verify the documents and submit a

report to the Court. As per the report submitted by the IO, the date of birth

of the petitioner was found to be correct as per the school record and a

statement given by the Principal of the school, was enclosed with the report.

The IO also mentioned in the report that the date of birth of the petitioner,

as recorded in the "Kutumbwar Register" of the village was 14.9.1988 and

that there was variation in both the records.

3. Vide order dated 19.3.2007, the learned ASJ directed that an

ossification test of the petitioner be got conducted from the All India

Institute of Medical Sciences(AIIMS). As per the certificate dated 10.4.2007

issued by the Medical Board, AIIMS, it was opined that the bone age of the

petitioner was more than 20 years. However, relying on the school leaving

certificate filed by the petitioner and the entry recorded in the Kutumbwar

petitioner was less than 18 years of age as on the date of the alleged

offence. The aforesaid order was challenged by the complainant by filing a

petition in the High Court, registered as Crl.RP. No.610/2007. Vide

judgment dated 27.4.2009, the revision petition was allowed and the

impugned order dated 19.4.2007 was set aside. It was directed that the

petitioner be produced before the ASJ to hold an inquiry under Section 7-A

of the Act in the prescribed manner after giving an opportunity to the

petitioner, as also the complainant to cross-examine the witnesses who may

be produced, to determine the question as to whether the petitioner was a

juvenile at the time of commission of the alleged offence or not.

4. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the learned ASJ held an inquiry

under Section 7-A of the Act and considered the deposition of two witnesses

produced on behalf of the petitioner, namely, AW-1, Mr.Mihi Lal, Gram

Panchayat Adhikari, village Dayalpur, PO Padam, Tehsil Jasrana, District

Firozabad (UP) and AW-2, Smt. Seema, Acting Principal of Adarsh Janta

Vidyalaya.

5. Insofar as AW-1 was concerned, the Court found the said

witness to be completely unreliable as it was observed that whatever

documents were demanded from the said witness, were being produced by

the relatives of the petitioner, who were present at the time of his

examination and that Shri Jaivir Singh, the relative of the petitioner

(examined as PW8 in the case) was assisting the witness. It was brought to

the notice of the learned ASJ that though AW-1 stated that the Pariwar

travel after receiving the summons till that point of time, however, he

admitted that when the matter was passed over in Court for the post lunch

session after his examination-in-chief and cross-examination, he was sitting

outside with Shri Jaivir Singh during the lunch recess and that Shri Jaivir

Singh had the Register of AW-1 in his hand and after examining the same,

he kept it in a polythene bag. Pertinently, counsel for the complainant

produced before the learned ASJ a mobile phone showing video recording of

the conversation between AW-1 and Shri Jaivir Singh outside the Court

which showed that after seeing the Register, Shri Jaivir Singh kept it inside

the polythene bag and retained the same with him. The said recording was

directed by the learned ASJ to be placed in a CD on the court record.

6. After examining the entries in the Register, learned ASJ arrived

at the conclusion that the last pages of the Register were manufactured and

cast a doubt on the genuineness of the Register. The trial court further

noted that though AW-1 stated that the said Pariwar Register produced by

him was in his custody since January, 2007, it did not contain his signatures

or initials anywhere. A number of loopholes were observed in the entries

made in the Pariwar Register, which compelled the Court to conclude that

the same could not be relied upon for determining the age of the petitioner.

7. The second witness, AW-2 was Smt. Seema, Acting Principal of

Adarsh Janta Vidhalya, District Firozabad, who deposed that the school was

being run by her father-in-law, Shri Vijay Pal Singh Chauhan, who expired

two years ago and that she had brought the scholar register and the transfer

certificate form of the said school, as maintained by her father-in-law and

after his death, she was working as an Acting Principal of the school. She

further deposed that the entry in respect of the petitioner shown in the

her deceased father-in-law and that she had issued the certificate in respect

of the age of the petitioner in her handwriting on the basis of the entry

recorded in the register, though she had no personal knowledge thereof.

She stated that prior to the death of her father-in-law, she was working as a

teacher in the said school and had not worked as a Principal therein. She

also admitted that she did not mention the date of issuance of the

certificate, Ex.AW2/DA, which was issued almost two years ago and that

there was no other record available or maintained by the school in respect of

the petitioner.

8. The learned ASJ scrutinized the evidence of AW-2 and noticed

that she was not authorized to issue the certificate in question as she was

not the Principal of the school at the relevant time and as her father-in-law,

who was earlier the Principal of the school, expired on 07.07.2007, on the

day on which Ex.AW2/DA was issued by the witness, her father-in-law was

very much alive and working as a Principal and she was therefore not

authorized to sign the same. The Court thus concluded that AW-2 had no

personal knowledge of the entry recorded in the scholar register brought by

her and that she was working as a teacher in the school before the death of

her father-in-law and never worked as a Principal therein and further that

there was no other record available or maintained by the school in respect of

the petitioner. During her cross-examination, AW-2 admitted that though

she had appeared in Court on receipt of summons, but she had not brought

the same with her. The office copy of the summons issued to the witness

revealed that the same were issued in the name of one Smt. Kamla Devi,

Principal, Adarsh Janta Vidhalya and not in the name of AW-2, Smt. Seema.

AW-2 admitted that the name of the school was not mentioned in the space

meant for the name of the institution on the scholar register, Ex.AW2/A. She

admitted that no birth certificate of the petitioner was produced in support of

his date of birth for the entry made in the scholar register and the same was

made only on the basis of the school leaving certificate issued by Vijay

Vidhalya Samiti, which was run by AW-2, who volunteered that the records

of the said school were lost in an accident, but no FIR was got registered

about missing of the records till date. Having regard to the fact that the

entries in the scholar register and the transfer certificate form brought by

AW-2 were not supported by any document and even the school leaving

certificate of the previous school from where, the petitioner had passed class

5th examination, which formed the basis of recording his date of birth in the

entries in the register, Ex.AW2/A, could not be relied upon.

9. This left the learned ASJ with one other piece of evidence, which

was the certificate dated 10.04.2007 issued by the Medical Board of AIIMS.

As per the said certificate, the age of the petitioner on the date of issuance

of the certificate was found to be more than 20 years. The date of the

alleged commission of offence by the petitioner was 05.09.2005. Relying on

the aforesaid certificate, the learned ASJ concluded that there was no doubt

that the age of the petitioner was more than 18 and a half years on the date

of the alleged commission of offence and hence he was held not to be a

juvenile. Aggrieved by the said finding, the petitioner has filed the present

petition.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that an ossification

test is never completely accurate as it only determines proximate age of the

person with a variance which can be upto plus/minus two years, depending

on various factors and while holding the petitioner not to be a juvenile on

the date of the alleged commission of offence, the learned ASJ did not give

him any benefit of margin of age. It was urged that the ground for forming

such an opinion could have been clarified only upon cross-examination of the

doctors, who submitted the ossification report and because the petitioner

could not subject the experts, who submitted the certificate, to cross-

examination, the same could not be relied upon. It was further contended

that as the ossification test was carried out for multiple joints hence, the

margin of error could be at least of six months, benefit of which period ought

to have gone to the petitioner. In support of the aforesaid submission,

counsel for the petitioner relied upon the following judgments:-

(i) Jaya Mala vs. Home Secretary, Government of Jammu and Kashmir and others AIR 1982 SC 1297;

(ii) Babloo Pasi vs. State of Jharkhand and Anr. 2008 (13) SCALE 137.

11. Per contra, counsel for the complainant supported the impugned

order and submitted that the medical examination of the petitioner was not

limited to a single bone, but was a comprehensive one and hence, the

petitioner was not entitled to any age relaxation as sought by him. It was

further submitted that the plea of juvenility by the petitioner was a sheer

afterthought and that even at the stage of the investigation he had on his

own given his age as above 18 years. In this regard, he drew the attention

of this Court to the charge-sheet filed by the Investigating Officer in the trial

court, wherein the age of the petitioner on the date of the offence was

declared by him as above 18 years. It was urged that in his test

identification parade before the Metropolitan Magistrate on 12.09.2005, the

petitioner had stated that he was above 18 years of age. Counsel for the

complainant canvassed that the petitioner made every attempt to mislead

the court in connivance with both the witnesses, AW-1 and AW-2, by

creating false and fabricated documents, which were found to be unreliable

by the trial court and rightly discarded. In support of his submissions,

counsel for the complainant relied upon the following judgments:-

(i) Lal Bahadur vs. State 106 (2003) DLT 481

(ii) Jabar Singh vs. Dinesh & Anr. JT 2010 (2) SC 603

12. This Court has heard the counsels for the parties and carefully

perused the impugned judgment as also the documents placed on the

record.

13. It is apparent from a perusal of the impugned order that there

were only three pieces of evidence available to the learned ASJ for him to

decide as to whether the petitioner was a juvenile at the time of commission

of the alleged offence, i.e., on 05.09.2005. The first piece of evidence was

the deposition of AW-1, Shri Mihi Lal, Gram Panchayat Adhikari, Block

Jasrana, District Firozabad, UP. It is apparent from a perusal of the

impugned order that the evidence of the said witness was carefully

scrutinized by the learned ASJ, who found that the register produced by the

witness had entries, which were not reliable and at no place did they contain

the signatures of AW-1, who was supposed to be maintaining the said

were found to be in the custody of the relative of the petitioner, Mr. Jaivir

Singh (examined as PW8 in the case). In the Kutumbvar Register brought

by the witness, variations were found in the house number of the petitioner.

In the true attested copy of the Kutumbvar Register issued by AW-1

(Ex.AW1/DB), the house number of the petitioner was shown as 203,

whereas in the Register actually brought by the said witness in Court, the

house number of the petitioner was mentioned as 143 at page No.387. The

whereas, the witness admitted that whenever an entry was made in the

the same. The witness admitted that while he had recorded several entries

during his tenure as Gram Panchayat Adhikari since 12.12.2006, he had

never signed the register at any place for authenticating the entries made

therein for recording births, deaths and marriages, etc.

14. Looking at the conduct of AW-1 and taking into consideration his

deposition during his cross-examination, which revealed that the documents

demanded from the said witness were being produced by the relatives of the

petitioner, who were present at the time of his examination, including Shri

Jaivir Singh, and after seeing the video recording of the conversation

between AW-1 and Shri Jaivir Singh outside the Court as recorded by the

counsel for the complainant on his mobile phone, separate directions were

issued by the learned ASJ to send a copy of the impugned order to the

District Magistrate, Firozabad, UP, for conducting an enquiry against the

guilty and if found necessary, to register a criminal case against those found

to have indulged in the fraudulent act of trying to mislead the Court, with

the active connivance of AW-1, a public servant and AW-2, Acting Principal

of a private school.

15. The second piece of evidence was the deposition of AW-2, Smt.

Seema. The impugned order clearly reveals that AW-2 could not produce

any certificate or authorization or any identity card in support of her being

appointed as Acting Principal of the school as claimed by her. She admitted

that the summons were issued in the name of Smt. Kamla Devi, but she was

unable to produce the summons issued by the Court on the basis of which,

she appeared in the Court. AW-2 admitted that on the date, when the

certificate (Ex.AW2/DA) was issued by her in respect of the age of the

petitioner, it was her father-in-law, who was the Principal of the school, and

he expired on 07.07.2007 and was alive and working as a Principal of the

school at the relevant time. This Court finds no reason to disagree with the

finding of the learned ASJ that AW-2 had issued an undated certificate with

the intention of helping the petitioner to claim benefit of juvenility and that

she had no personal knowledge about the entries recorded in the scholar

did not bear the name of the school anywhere and the entries made in the

the school leaving certificate issued by Vijay Vidhalya Samiti, which was run

by AW-2. AW-2 admitted that the petitioner was admitted to class 6th in

Adarsh Janta Vidhalya on the basis of a transfer certificate issued by Vijay

Vidhalya Samiti, a branch of her own school, records of which were allegedly

lost in an accident, but no FIR was got registered in respect thereof. Hence,

in the absence of any record of Vijay Vidhalya Samiti, which formed the

basis of making the entries in the register of Adarsh Janta Vidhalya

(Ex.AW2/A), it was found to be unsafe to rely on the testimony of AW-2 or

the documents produced by her. In these circumstances, the learned ASJ

cannot be faulted in concluding that AW-2 had issued the certificate

deliberately with the intention of helping the petitioner claim the benefit of

being a juvenile before the Court.

16. As a result of the above, both the pieces of documentary

evidence relied upon by the petitioner stood completely demolished before

the learned ASJ and had to be discarded. It is quite apparent from the

above that the petitioner left no stone unturned to ensure that he was

declared a juvenile and his relatives spared no opportunity to tamper with

the government records produced by AW-1 and to influence AW-2, the

Acting Principal of a private school to support the plea of the petitioner that

he was a juvenile at the time of alleged commission of offence. Counsel for

the petitioner has also not made any attempt to controvert the findings of

the learned ASJ with respect to the deposition of AW-1 and AW-2. This

leaves the third and the only other evidence in the shape of the age

certificate dated 10.4.2007, issued by the expert body namely, the Medical

Board, constituted by AIIMS on the directions of the court, to opine the bone

age of the petitioner.

17. The age certificate issued by the Medical Board constituted at

AIIMS, included a Radiologist, a Resident Hospital Administrator and a

Professor of Forensic Medicine. The said certificate was issued after

considering the findings of physical, dental and radiological examination of

the petitioner. The Medical Board submitted its report after conducting an

ossification test for multiple bones and gave a clear finding that the bone

age of the petitioner was more than 20 years. When the report itself

categorically certified that the age of the petitioner was more than 20 years

as on the date of its issuance, i.e. on 10.04.2007, the question of giving him

any age relaxation of six months as claimed by the petitioner, does not

appear to be tenable. If the age of the petitioner was 20 years as on

10.04.2007, then on the date of the alleged commission of offence, i.e., on

05.09.2005, he was 18 years 5 months of age. That the petitioner was one

month short of 18½ years on the relevant date can hardly be considered to

be of such material significance, so as to arrive at an entirely different

conclusion as to the juvenility of the petitioner, from that as arrived at in the

impugned order.

18. Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children)

Rules, 2007 (for short `the Rules'), which lays down the procedure to be

followed for determination of age, does not enjoin the Court to necessarily

give the benefit to a child or a juvenile by considering his/her age on the

lower side, within the margin of one year. Rule 12 is reproduced hereinbelow

for ready reference:-

"12. Procedure to be followed in determination of Age.- (1) In every case concerning a child or a juvenile in conflict with law, the Court or the Board, or as the case may be, the Committee referred to in rule 19 of these rules shall determine the age of such juvenile or child or a juvenile in conflict with law within a period of thirty days from the date of making of the application for that purpose.

(2) The Court or the Board or, as the case may be, the Committee shall decide the juvenility or otherwise of the juvenile or the child or, as the case may be, the juvenile in conflict with law, prima facie on the basis of physical appearances or documents, if available, and send him to the observation home or in jail.

(3) In every case concerning a child or juvenile in conflict with law, the age determination inquiry shall be conducted by the Court or the Board or, as the case may be, the Committee by seeking evidence by obtaining -

(a)(i) the matriculation or equivalent certificates, if available; and in the absence whereof;

(ii) the date of birth certificate from the school (other than a play school) first attended; and in the absence whereof;

(iii) the birth certificate given by a corporation or a municipal authority or a panchayat;

(b)and only in the absence of either (i), (ii) or

(iii) of clause (a) above, the medical opinion will be sought from a duly constituted Medical Board, which will declare the age of the juvenile or child. In case exact assessment of the age cannot be done, the Court or the Board or, as the case may be, the Committee, for the reasons to be recorded by them, may, if considered necessary, give benefit to the child or juvenile by considering his/her age on lower side within the margin of one year, and, while 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 and either of the evidence specified in any of the clauses (a)(i), (ii), (iii) or in the absence whereof, clause (b) shall be the conclusive proof of the age as regards such child or the juvenile in conflict with law.

(4) If the age of a juvenile or child or the juvenile in conflict with law is found to be below 18 years on the date of offence, on the basis of any of the conclusive proof specified in sub-rule (3), the Court or the Board or, as the case may be, the Committee shall in writing pass an order stating the age and declaring the status of juvenility or otherwise, for the purpose of the Act and these rules and a copy of the order shall be given to such juvenile or the person concerned.

(5) Save and except where, further inquiry or otherwise is required, inter alia, in terms of section 7-A, section 64 of the Act and these rules, no further inquiry shall be conducted by the Court or the Board after examining and obtaining the certificate or any other documentary proof referred to in sub-rule (3) of this rule.

(6) The provisions contained in this rule shall also apply to those disposed off cases, where the status of juvenility has not been determined in accordance with the provisions contained in sub-rule (3) and the Act, requiring dispensation of the sentence under the Act for passing appropriate order in the interest of the juvenile in conflict with law."

Sub-rule 3(b) of Rule 12 has used the words, "...may, if considered

necessary,..." In other words, it is within the discretion of the court to

grant or refuse the margin of error while ascertaining the age of a party.

Hence, it cannot be contended that the court below was under an obligation

to give age relaxation of six months to the petitioner, as claimed by the

counsel for the petitioner. The facts of each case have to be examined in its

own backdrop for considering grant of age relaxation.

19. In the present case, there is no ambiguity in the medical opinion

received. The Medical Board gave a clear and categorical finding that the

age of the petitioner was above 20 years as on 10.04.2007 which means

that his age was in any case, over 20 years. The incidence occurred on

5.9.2005, i.e., 1 year 7 months earlier. If this period is deducted from 20

years, the minimum age of the petitioner, as opinioned by the experts, he

was 18 years 5 months of age on 5.9.2005. Hence, there appears no

manner of doubt as to the age factor of the petitioner on the relevant date,

and it has to be held that as on the date of the alleged commission of

offence, i.e., on 05.09.2005, the petitioner was most certainly above 18

years of age. This Court sees no reason to grant age relaxation of six

months to the petitioner as claimed by the counsel for the petitioner. The

petitioner was clearly 5 months above 18 years on the crucial date.

Furthermore, it is not a case of a single bone test, but a multiple ossification

test conducted on the petitioner and examined by an expert panel. In view

of the fact that a multiple bones examination of the petitioner was

undertaken, as against a limited examination of a single bone, age

relaxation of six months cannot be insisted upon by the petitioner. It is also

pertinent to note that at no stage did the petitioner ask for the cross-

examination of any of the members of the Medical Board constituted by

AIIMS. Hence for the counsel for the petitioner to urge at this stage that he

was denied an opportunity to cross-examine the authors of the said

certificate, does not cut any ice and has to be turned down.

20. Further, as rightly pointed out by the counsel for the

complainant, at every stage of the investigation, the petitioner had himself

declared that he was above 18 years of age. A perusal of the copy of the

trial court record filed by the counsel for the petitioner reveals that the

petitioner had declared his age to be above 18 years.

21. Insofar as the judgments relied upon by the counsel for the

petitioner are concerned, they are specific to the peculiar facts of those

cases and cannot be of any benefit to the petitioner. It has been repeatedly

held that each case has to be examined on its own facts and in any case,

there cannot be a uniform yardstick for application of Rule 12 of the Rules.

22. In the case of Babloo Pasi (supra), while holding that the opinion

of the Medical Board per se is not a conclusive proof of age of the person

concerned, the Supreme Court observed that it was neither feasible, nor

desirable to lay down an abstract formula to determine the age of a person

and that the date of birth is to be determined on the basis of the material on

record and on appreciation of evidence adduced by the parties. The court

also endorsed the opinion taken by the Supreme Court in the case of Arnit

Das vs. State of Bihar, reported as 2000 Cri.L.J. 2971 that while dealing

with a question of determination of the age of the accused, for the purpose

of finding out whether he is juvenile or not, a hyper technical approach

should not be adopted while appreciating the evidence adduced on behalf of

the accused, and if two views may be possible on the same evidence, the

court should lean in favour of holding the accused to be a juvenile in

borderline cases.

23. In the present case, the documentary evidence produced by the

petitioner has been found to be completely unreliable and stands discredited.

The only other cogent piece of evidence on the record is the certificate

issued by the Medical Board of AIIMS. Even as per the said certificate, as

noted above, the petitioner was actually over 20 years of age on 10.4.2007

and consequently, on the date of commission of the alleged offence, on

5.9.2005, he was 18 years and 5 months of age. This is not a case where a

hyper technical approach has been adopted or where two views are possible

on the basis of the evidence adduced. This Court therefore finds no

justification to disagree with the findings of fact returned by the learned ASJ

in the impugned order.

24. In the case of Jaya Mala (supra), the Medical Board had opined

that the age of the detenue was between 18 and 19 years and therefore, the

Supreme Court concluded that on the date of his detention, the petitioner

was around 17 years of age. It was in this context that it was observed that

one can take judicial notice of the fact that margin of error in age

ascertained by radiological examination is 2 years on either side. But in the

present case, the petitioner had undergone a multiple ossification test which

was categorical in its findings that the petitioner was "more than 20 years of

age on 10.4.2007". Hence, margin of 2 years or for that matter, even 6

months cannot be granted to the petitioner, who was found to be over 18

years on the relevant date.

25. The material placed on the record and the evidence produced by

the parties, has amply demonstrated that the petitioner completely failed to

adduce any cogent evidence in support of his plea that he was a juvenile on

the date of commission of the alleged offence. Further, this is not a case

where two views can be possible on the same evidence. Rather, the

evidence brought on the record clearly shows that only one view is possible,

which is that the bone age of the petitioner was above 20 years on the date

of his medical examination and consequently, he was not less than 18 years

of age on the date of the alleged commission of the offence.

26. This Court is unable to persuade itself to agree with the counsel

for the petitioner that the learned ADJ took a hyper technical approach in

refusing to give the petitioner any age relaxation. It is not a case where any

age relaxation could have been granted to the petitioner. As is apparent

from a perusal of the report of the Medical Board, the radiological

examination of the petitioner was conducted for multiple joints. The very

fact that the Medical Board categorically opined the age of the petitioner to

be more than 20 years, shows that there is no scope of age relaxation by

holding his age to be minus 18 years, as sought to be urged by the counsel

for the petitioner. The petitioner was clearly 18 years 5 months on 5.9.2005

and therefore, not a juvenile on the said date.

27. Taking into account the fact that the opinion of the trial court is

based on the certificate issued by the Medical Board, the findings recorded in

the impugned order determining the age of the petitioner, cannot be held to

be illegal, arbitrary or one not based on any evidence, thus warranting

interference in revisional jurisdiction. The revision petition is therefore,

dismissed as being devoid of merits. The petitioner is directed to appear

before the learned ASJ on 24th September, 2010 for further proceedings.




                                                              (HIMA KOHLI)
SEPTEMBER     9, 2010                                            JUDGE
mk/rkb/sk