Back
2012 Supreme(Jhk) 118
[2012 (2) East Cr C 59 (Jhr)]
JHARKHAND HIGH COURT
R.R. PRASAD, J.
Sahbaz Ansari @ Sahbaz Ahmed @ Mohd. Sahbaz Answari - Petitioner
Versus
State of Jharkhand & Anr. Opp. Parties
Cri. Revision No. 568 of 2011,
Decided on : January 23, 2012.
K.P. Deo, for the petitioner.
APP, for the State.
The main legal point established is that the Juvenile Justice Board's reliance on a previous order for age determination is justified, and setting aside such a decision without proper justification is not warranted.
Headnote:
Juvenile Justice - Age Determination - The court upheld the decision of the Juvenile Justice Board to declare the petitioner as a juvenile based on the date of birth established in a previous case, despite the appellate court's finding that the inquiry was not conducted properly.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was remanded in connection with a case under the Arms Act and Explosive Substances Act. An application was filed to declare him a juvenile based on his date of birth, which was found to be before the age of 18 at the time of the occurrence.
Finding of the Court:
The court set aside the appellate court's decision, stating that the Juvenile Justice Board's reliance on the previous order for age determination was justified and that it would have been duplication of work to conduct a detailed inquiry.
Issues: The main issue was the validity of the Juvenile Justice Board's decision to declare the petitioner as a juvenile based on the date of birth established in a previous case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the Juvenile Justice Board's reliance on the previous order for age determination was reasonable and that the appellate court was not justified in setting aside the board's decision.
Final Decision: The court set aside the appellate court's decision and dismissed the application, upholding the Juvenile Justice Board's determination of the petitioner's age.
By the Court.-Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the State.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that when the petitioner was remanded in connection with Meharma (Balbadda) P.S. Case No. 10 of 2011 which was registered under Sections 25(1b) (A)/26/35 of the Arms Act and also under Section 4/5 of the Explosive Substances Act, an application was filed before the Juvenile Justice Board, Godda for declaring him Juvenile as the date of birth of the petitioner is 10.08.1993 and hence, on the date of occurrence i.e. on 15.01.2011, he was less than 18 years of age. In support of his case, the petitioner also produced the photocopy of the order dated 17.02.2011 passed in G.R. No. 1116 of 2010 under which, the petitioner had been declared as juvenile in connection with other case. In that case, the petitioner had been held juvenile on the basis of an order passed on 7.10.2009 in G.R. No. 699 of 2009 wherein the Court, having examined the Headmaster of the School and reliance on being placed upon the Admission Register and also on the Admit Card issued by the Jharkhand Academic Council, found the date of birth of the petitioner as 10.08.1993. Taking this date of birth, the petitioner was found to be juvenile by the Juvenile Justice Board in connection of instant case which has given rise this application.
3. When the order was challenged before the learned Sessions Judge, Godda in Cr. Appeal No. 34 of 2011, it was set aside on 28.06.2011, holding that the Juvenile Justice Board, without holding the inquiry properly, determined the age of the accused, and as such, it is quite illegal.
4. That order has been challenged to be bad.
5. It is true that the Juvenile Justice Board did not proceed with the inquiry rather placed reliance on an order whereby the petitioner had been declared Juvenile on the basis of the documents produced during inquiry in that case.
6. Since, the petitioner's age, during inquiry, of course, not in connection with this case rather in connection with other case, was found as 10.08.1993, it would have been duplication of work for the Juvenile Justice Board to go for detailed enquiry as the order under which the petitioner had been declared juvenile on the basis of documents and evidences has never been challenged and as such, the appellate Court was not just, in setting aside the order passed by the Juvenile Justice Board.
7. Accordingly, order dated 28.06.2011 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Godda in Cr. Appeal No. 34 0f 2011 is, hereby, set aside.
8. In the result, this application stands dismissed.
Application dismissed.
