Point of Law: Section 9(2) of the said Act, which makes it mandatory for determination of juvenility as per the provisions contained in the said Act of 2015 and that the learned Special Judge ought to have relied upon the documents mentioned in Section 94 of the 2015 Act, but the learned Special Judge had relied on Adhar Card, Driving license produced by the prosecution which have no bearing to determine the age of juvenile.

JUDGMENT :

Legality, propriety and correctness of order, dated 23.07.2021, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kamrup(M), at Guwahati in B.A. Case No. 196/2021 is challenged in this revision petition, by the petitioner-Md. Safiqur Rahman. It is to be noted herein that vide impugned order, the learned Session Judge has rejected the plea of juvenility taken by the petitioner, and consequently rejected his bail petition considering the nature and gravity of the offence.

2. The factual background leading to filing of the present petitioner is briefly stated as under:-

“On 06.03.2021 Intelligence Officer, Narcotic Control Bureau (NCB), Guwahati Zonal Unit -Shri Phani Narjinary along with a team of NCB, apprehended a vehicle being registration No. MN-05A-7260 and recovered suspected narcotic contrabands from the said vehicle and arrested the present petitioner along with another co-accused namely, Krishan Mahapatra Mali. On receipt of a complaint to this effect from Shri Phani Narjinary, NCB Crime Case No. 06/2021, under Section 22(C)/29 of the NDPS Act has been registered and investigated upon. While the petitioner is in judicial custody, he preferred a bail application before the learned Session Judge, Kamrup being BA 196/2021, and upon hearing the learned advocates of both the side and also considering the documents placed on record, the learned Court below rejected the plea of juvenility taken by the petitioner before the learned Court below and consequently rejected his bail application.”

3. Being highly aggrieved for rejection of the plea of juvenility, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present revision petition on the following grounds:-

a. that, the learned counsel below has ignored the object and reasons as well as the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015;

b. that, the learned Court below has ignored the provisions of Section 9(2) of the said Act, which makes it mandatory for determination of juvenility as per the provisions contained in the said Act of 2015 and that the learned Special Judge ought to have relied upon the documents mentioned in Section 94 of the 2015 Act, but the learned Special Judge had relied on Adhar Card, Driving license produced by the prosecution which have no bearing to determine the age of juvenile;

c. that, the learned Court below while rejecting the claim of juvenility, did not verify the Certificate issued by the Board regarding the age of the petitioner; and

d. that, the learned Special Judge, Kamrup have no jurisdiction to decide the plea of juvenility as provided in 2015 Act and ought to have forwarded the case to Juvenile Justice Board for deciding the claim of the juvenility.

4. The respondent No.1, i.e. Union of India (NCB) has contested the petition by filing affidavit in opposition. It is stated that along with the commercial quantity of the contraband substance, it has seized the Driving Licence and Adhar Card of the petitioner which clearly shows the date of birth of the petitioner as 16.03.2001 and as such he is major and the same stands fortified by the ossification test report. Therefore, it is contended to dismiss the petition as according to it the learned court below has rightly rejected the plea of juvenility taken by the petitioner.

5. I have heard Mr. A. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S. C. Kayal, learned standing counsel for the NCB.

6. Mr. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that while deciding the plea of juvenility, the learned Court below has not recorded any conclusive finding regarding the genuineness of the certificate produced by the petitioner. Mr. Ahmed further submits that as per the certificate produced by the petitioner, he is below 18 years and as such, he is entitled to get the benefit of 2015 Act and that the plea of juvenility has to be decided on the basis of documents mention in Section 94 of the 2015 Act and that Adhaar Card and Driving License, which the learned Court bel