GAURAV KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this special leave petition preferred Under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner who claims to be a juvenile has called in question the legal defensibility of the order dated 30.01.2015 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Application No. 20593 of 2014 in Criminal Appeal No. 937-DB of 2002 Under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure asserting, inter alia, that on the date, the offence took place, i.e. 23.05.2000, he was 17 years and nine months old, his date of birth being 17.08.1982. The High Court had called for a report from the concerned learned Sessions Judge. The report being against the Petitioner, the Learned Counsel appearing for him did not press the application. Be it noted, the report of the learned Sessions Judge was to the extent that the present Petitioner was not a juvenile on the date of occurrence.

(2.) It is submitted by Mr. Raval, learned senior counsel appearing for the Petitioner that even though the application was not pressed, regard being had to the provisions contained in the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of the Children) Act, 2000 (for brevity, 'the Act'), the Petitioner would be at liberty to challenge the order inasmuch as the matriculation certificate is in his favour.

(3.) Mr. Mukul Rohtagi, learned Attorney General for India, has seriously contested the said position on two scores, namely, once it has not been pressed, the same cannot be assailed and second, in any case, the certificate obtained by the Petitioner cannot be treated as sacrosanct for many a reason.