MOHD FEROZ ALIAS BHOLA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The learned counsel for the petitioner is seeking bail for the petitioner on the ground that he is a juvenile and is entitled to the same under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act. 2000. He drew my attention to the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on 27.8.2002 which indicates that the police authorities had placed on record the details of the date of birth of the petitioner and according to these details, the date of birth was said to be 14.2.1984. In the said order, it was recorded that the date of commission of the crime was 6.11.2000 and. accordingly, on that date in view of the aforesaid date of birth, the petitioner would have been 16 years and 9 months old. Accordingly, the learned Additional Sessions Judge recorded a finding that the petitioner was a juvenile within the meaning of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act. 2000 (hereinafter referred to as "the 2000 Act") and directed that he be produced before the Juvenile Court for further trial.

(2.) Being aggrieved by this order the mother of the deceased filed an application for recall of the same. By an order dated 4.9.2002, the learned Additional Sessions Judge recorded that the petitioner had been found to be a juvenile by that Court on 27.8.2002 on the basis of a birth certificate issued by the MCD Authorities and produced by the police. It was submitted on behalf of the complainant that the ossification test of the petitioner ought to be done and the order be recalled. However the learned Additional Sessions Judge felt that as the petitioner was found to be a juvenile as per the date of birth recorded in the certificate, there was no necessity for getting an ossification test done. He. accordingly, dismissed the said application for recall.

(3.) Being aggrieved by this order as well as the order of 27.8.2002. the said complainant (Smt. Zulekha) preferred a Revision Petition before this Court (Crl. Revision Petition No. 775/2002 and Crl.M. 978/2002). By a judgment and order dated 10.12.2004. the said revision petition was disposed of. This, Court held that Section 20 of the said Act of 2000 would be applicable and it observed as under: "The expression "Court" in Section 20 of the new Act means "Court" other than Juvenile Court, otherwise the very purpose of saying that proceedings in respect of a juvenile, pending in any Court on the date the Act came in force, shall be continued in that Court, as if the Act had not been passed would become meaningless. To repeat, on the date when the new Act came into force, all proceedings pending before the Courts will have to proceed, as if the Act has not been passed. The second part of Section 20 makes the provisions of new Act applicable, only after a finding is recorded in respect of the juvenile that he has committed an offence for which he has been charged. In such cases, the trial court is required to forward the delinquent juveniles to the Juvenile Courts, to pass appropriate orders in provisions of the Act". Accordingly, this Court allowed the Revision and set aside the impugned order and directed the trial Judge to proceed with the trial and to pass an appropriate order in accordance with law. In other words, this Court held that the transfer of the case insofar as the petitioner was concerned to the Juvenile Court was bad and the Court which was hearing the matter initially was the appropriate Court to continue to hear the matter in terms of Section 20 of the Act of 2000.