CRLA/215/2004
2021 Latest Caselaw 5424 UK

SL.           Office Notes,
No.   Date   reports, orders           COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
             or proceedings
              or directions
             and Registrar's
               order with
               Signatures
                               MCRC No. 60 of 2021
                                    In
                               CRLA No. 215 of 2004

                               Shri Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, ACJ.
                               Shri Narayan Singh Dhanik, J.

None appears for the appellant. Mr. J.S. Virk, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State.

This is prisoner's application filed by the appellant namely Ameer Ali to treat him as a juvenile. It is borne out from the record that his appeal has been dismissed by this Court as per the judgment dated 12.07.2005 against which an SLP was filed, which was allowed and four criminal appeals were registered. These four criminal appeals were dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as per judgment dated 26.02.2009, wherein the question of juvenility was dealt in Para 37 of the judgment, which reads as follows:-

"37. The question is : should an enquiry be made or report be called for from the trial court invariably where juvenility is claimed for the first time before this Court. Where the materials placed before this Court by the accused, prima facie, suggest that the accused was 'juvenile' as defined in the Act, 2000 on the date of incident, it may be necessary to call for the report or an enquiry be ordered to be made. However, in a case where plea of juvenility is found unscrupulous or the materials lack credibility or do not inspire confidence and even, prima facie, satisfaction of the court is not made out, we do not think any further exercise in this regard is necessary. If the plea of juvenility was not raised before the trial court or the High Court and is raised for the first time before this court, the judicial conscience of the court must be satisfied by placing adequate and satisfactory material that the accused had not 2 9 attained age of eighteen years on the date of commission of offence; sans such material any further enquiry into juvenility would be unnecessary." In that view of the matter, the question of juvenility attained finality by virtue of the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as quoted above. Hence, this Court do not have further jurisdiction to decide the question of juvenility again. Accordingly, the application (MCRC No. 1 of 2021) filed by the prisoner is hereby dismissed.

(N.S. Dhanik, J.) (S.K. Mishra, ACJ.)

30.12.2021

A/-