FOOL CHANDRA CHAUHAN Vs. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS criminal application, moved u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as Cr.P.C.) is directed for quashing the order dated 19.11.2004 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Nainital in Bail Application No. 230 -A/2004, State Vs. Ram Ashish and judgment and order dated 8.4.2005 passed by the Sessions Judge, Nainital in Crl. Revision no. 10/2005, Phool Chandra Chauhan Vs. State of Uttaranchal & another.

(2.) FROM a perusal of the judgment of the Juvenile Justice Board, it reveals that the date of birth of respondent no. 2 is 15.7.1990 and he was 15 years and 31/2 month's of age on the date of incident on which the case was registered against him under Section 394/302 IPC at PS Haldwani. Along with the petition, a certificate (Annexure 4) has also been filed of respondent no. 2, on the basis of which he was declared juvenile by the Juvenile 2 Justice Board which has been issued by the Principal, Progressive Montessary Primary School, Haldwani (Nainital) in which the date of birth of respondent no. 2 has been mentioned as "15.7.1990". It was argued by learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 that the said certificate is of the First School attended by the respondent no. 2 and the Juvenile Justice Board had declared him juvenile as per Rule 22 of the Uttaranchal Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules 2002, Rule 22(5) of the said Rules is relevant to mention here which is as follows : -

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties, perusing the documents filed by the petitioner as well by the respondent no. 2, it reveals that on the basis of the date of birth certificate from the first school attended by the respondent no. 2 i.e. Principal, Progressive Montessary Junior High School, Haldwani, the date of birth of respondent no. 2 is 15.7.1990 and on the date of incident his age was 15 years 31/2 months and as such, the respondent no. 2 was Juvenile on the date of incident. Further, the medical certificate issue by the CMO, Nainital cannot be taken into consideration in view of Rule 22(5) of the Uttaranchal Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules 2002, as quoted above. As such, the judgment and order passed by the courts below are correct and justified on the basis of evidence produced before them and the impugned orders do not require any interference by this Court as the judgments and orders on merit are correct and justified. It is most significant to mention here that the revision was not maintainable before the Sessions Judge rather only the appeal u/s 52 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 was maintainable inasmuch the Revision is maintainable before the High Court u/s 53 of the aforesaid Act. For the reasons as aforesaid, the petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. Interim order dated 1.9.2005 is vacated.