SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2002 Supreme(MP) 301

High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
S. L. Kochar
RAJENDRA SINGH SONU - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH - Respondents
Criminal Revision 130 Of 2002
Decided On : 03/07/2002

Advocates Appeared:
GIRISH DESAI, Subodh Abhyankar

Headnote:Juvenile Justice Act - Section 24 - Petitioner being prosecuted before Seasions Court moved an application that he was less than 16 years of age on date of incident and in support filed school certificate - Trial Court rejected application on ground that it was moved at belated stage - Revision - Trial Court's view was wrong - As matter pertained to jurisdiction of court, it could be raised at any stage - Court directed to hold enquiry on the question of age of applicant. (Paras 5 & 6)

       Result: Revision allowed.

       

S. L. KOCHAR, J.

( 1 ) THIS revision is filed against the order dated 1st February, 2002 passed by III ASJ Mhow in st No. 594/96 rejecting the application of the applicant filed under Section 24 of the Juvenile Justice Act (Old Act ).

( 2 ) CONTENTION of the counsel for the applicant is that on the basis of the school certificate. date of birth of the applicant is 9-9-1982 whereas the date of incident is 9-7-1996. Hence on the alleged date of the incident, he was 16 years of age and for this purpose he has filed High School Certificate as well as other mark lists, but the trial Court has rejected the application on the ground that he has filed the application at belated stage.

( 3 ) MR. Girish Desai, Dy. AG appearing for the State submits that on the basis of legal position as pronounced in the judgment reported in Bhola Bhagat v. State of Bihar that once the application is filed on behalf of the accused/applicant about his age, the trial Court is bound to enquire into the matter after giving full and effective opportunity to both the parties (accused/applicant and the State)

( 4 ) COUNSEL for the applicant has also placed reliance on catena of judgments by this Court i. e. ,1. Lalsingh v. State of M. P. 2. Khalulullah v. State of M. P. 3. Vinod v. State of M. P. 4. Guman v. State of M. P. 5. Suresh Agrawal v. State of M. P. 6. Rinkoo Khatri v. State of M. P.

( 5 ) IN all these judgments, it has been held that the question of age of the applicant being juvenile is agitated before the trial Court then the trial court is duty bound to enquire into the matter as per Juvenile Justice Act, because it is a question of jurisdiction of the Court and the law is well settled that the question of jurisdiction can be raised at any stage even at the final stage when the appeal or the matter is pending before the Supreme Court.

( 6 ) IN view of the aforesaid settled legal position, this revision is allowed and the trial Court is directed to hold effective enquiry after affording full opportunity to both the parties for adducing evidence on the question of age of the applicant. It is further directed that the enquiry about the age shall be completed as early as possible preferrably within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of this order. Counsel for the applicant/accused is directed to produce the certified copy of the order immediately after the receipt of the same. Certificate copy of the order be given on usual charges in 3 days. Revision allowed.


.



Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top