The Madhya Pradesh High Court, recently comprising of a bench of Justice Satyendra Kumar Singh while setting aside the order passed by the lower court whereby it had rejected the application moved by the Petitioner/accused to refer his matter to the Juvenile Justice Board held that the trial court does not have the power under Section 94 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2015 to determine the age as contested by the accused and that the same can be exercised only by the Juvenile Justice Board. (Shriram Rawat Versus The State Of Madhya Pradesh)
Facts of the case
The applicant along with other co-accused persons was facing criminal trial for the offences punishable u/S 8C/15 of NDPS Act. After filing of chargesheet till framing of charges, applicant was not represented by any one and on 17.05.2020, his counsel filed vakalatnama and found applicant’s age below 18 years. Hence, on 18.05.2020, counsel for the applicant moved an application u/S 94 of the Act of 2015 by which prayer was made for referring the matter to Juvenile Justice Board for determination of his age as well as for his trial.
Learned trial Court directed the respondent to verify the documents filed by the applicant in support of his aforesaid application and after receiving the verification report, vide order dated 28.05.2021 rejected applicant’s application on the ground that school scholar register entry with regard to date of birth of the applicant is doubtful and secondly, as per date of birth entry of his Aadhar Card, his date of birth is 24.03.2000 and as per the said date of birth, applicant was major at the time of incident.
This criminal revision u/S 397 r/W 401 of Cr.P.C. was preferred against the order passed by the Court of trial court, whereby applicant's application filed u/S 94 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015[referred to as the Act of 2015 hereinafter] requesting to refer the matter to Juvenile Justice Board for determination of applicant's age was rejected.
Contention of the Parties
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that learned trial Court has committed an error of law while not taking into consideration the application filed by the applicant u/S 94 of the Act of 2015. He further submitted that exclusive jurisdiction for determination of the age of applicant lies with the Juvenile Justice Board constituted under the Act of 2015 as held in the case of Indra Singh Vs. State of M.P. [ 2017(1) MPWN 105]. Hence, learned trial Court has committed jurisdictional error in dismissing the application for determination of the age of applicant. Impugned order is patently illegal and thus, is liable to be set aside.
Learned counsel for the respondent/State has opposed the prayer and submitted that it was apparent from the record that applicant was major at the time of incident. Hence, learned trial Court has rightly dismissed the application filed by the applicant for referring the matter to Juvenile Justice Board.
Courts observation and order
The bench at the very outset observed, “In the instant case, application claiming juvenility was filed before the Court, therefore, this matter falls under the category of 32(iia) and (iib) i.e. sub clause 2 and 3 of Section 94 of the Act of 2015 in the case of Rishipal Singh Solanki(supra) would be applied. Applicant in support of his juvenility produced school scholar register entry. Therefore, it can be said that he has discharged the initial burden, although the said presumption is however not conclusive proof of age of his juvenility and the same may be rebutted. But on the basis of documents produced by the applicant, presumption of juvenility may be applied in the matter as rightly held in the case of Indra Singh(supra) cited by learned counsel for the applicant.”
The bench setting aside the order passed by the Trial Court remarked, “Trial Court was not having power to determine the age of the applicant and this power is vested only with the JJ Board constituted under the Act of 2015. Therefore, it is apparent that the impugned order was not passed following the provisions of the Act, of 2015. Hence, the same is liable to be set aside.
In view of the above, petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 28.05.2021 is hereby set aside. The matter is remanded back to the trial Court for consideration of application filed by the applicant u/S 94 of the Act of 2015 afresh and pass appropriate order as per the provision of Section 94 of the Act of 2015 in accordance with law”
Read Judgment ;
Social media is young.
Social media raises questions.
Social media is not satisfied with an answer.
Social media looks at the big picture.
Social media is interested in every detail.
social media is curious.
Social media is free.
Social media is irreplaceable.
But never irrelevant.
Social media is you.
(With input from news agency language)
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our journalism free from government and corporate pressure.
0 Comments