Back
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
ATUL KUMAR JAIN, J.
Guddu alias Riyasat Ansari
vs
State of Rajasthan
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1033 of 2012
Decided On: 29/05/2013
JUVENILE JUSTICE ACT - SECTION 12 - AGE DETERMINATION - DRIVING LICENSE AS EVIDENCE OF AGE - SCHOOL RECORDS AND MEDICAL OPINION AS SECONDARY EVIDENCE - BURDEN OF PROOF ON ACCUSED TO PROVE JUVENILE STATUS.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, Guddu, was charged with offenses under the NDPS Act, 1985. He filed a revision petition challenging the trial court's order dismissing his application to be treated as a juvenile. The petitioner claimed that he was a juvenile at the time of the alleged offense, but the trial court found that his driving license indicated he was 20 years old.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the petitioner was estopped from claiming juvenile status because he had submitted a driving license indicating he was 20 years old. The court also found that the petitioner's school records and medical opinion were not sufficient to prove his juvenile status.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner was a juvenile at the time of the alleged offense. 2. Whether the trial court erred in dismissing the petitioner's application to be treated as a juvenile.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner was not a juvenile at the time of the alleged offense. The court found that the petitioner's driving license was strong evidence of his age and that his school records and medical opinion were not sufficient to rebut this evidence. The court also found that the petitioner was estopped from claiming juvenile status because he had submitted the driving license indicating he was 20 years old.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petitioner's revision petition.
1. This criminal revision petition was filed by accused Guddu alias Rayasat Ansari alias Jiyauall against the order dated 21-11-2012 passed Special Judge, N.D.P.S. Act Cases, Jodhpur in Criminal Misc. Case No. 362/2011 pertaining to Sessions Case No. 152/2010 for the offences under Section 8/15 of the NDPS Act, 1985 (for short the Act of 1985) whereby the trial Court has dismissed the application of accused-petitioner Guddu alias Riyasat Ansari alias Jiyauall to treat him Juvenile.
2. I have heard arguments of both sides. The learned Public Prosecutor has strongly opposed the prayer of the revision petitioner. It is not disputed that charge-sheet has been filed against accused Guddu and seven others accused-persons in the trial Court and in the charge-sheet age of Guddu has been mentioned as 20 years and he has been charged under Section 8/15 of the Act of 1985. It has been alleged that at the time of seizure of contraband goods turbo truck was being driven by accused Guddu and 15 tons of steel was said to be loaded in the truck but on checking truck was found to contain 109 bags weighing 2610 kgs of Doda-post which was being transported without any license or permission.
3. The driving license (Ex. A.2) of accused Guddu was also seized by the raid party on the spot in which his age was mentioned as 20 years. In the circumstances of the case, accused-petitioner is estopped by his own conduct to claim the benefit of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (for short the Act of 2000). The petitioner has relied upon the following ruling :
Vinod Singh v. State of Rajasthan, 2011 (2) R Cr D 223.
4. In this ruling, it was held that the Courts should not be hyper-technical while determining age of Juvenile and the rights and interests of Juvenile should be protected. In this judgment, Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 was also referred which states as follows :
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 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 juvenile 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 appearance or documents, it 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 determining 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 of equivalent certificate, 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
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
