AHER MALDA DADA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision Application is directed against an order by which the opponent No. 2 Samat Dhana has been found to be a child within the meaning of the Saurashtra Children Act 1954 The said question arises under the following circumstances.

(2.) The opponent Nos. 2 to 4 have been charge sheeted by the police before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Khambhalia for having committed an offence under sec. 302 read with sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code. It is alleged that they murdered the son of the present petitioner. Before the committal court an application was made on behalf of the opponent No. 2 Samat Dhana stating that at the date of the commission of the alleged offence he was a child within the meaning of the Saurashtra Children Act 1954 and that therefore his trial should be separated and he should be charge sheeted before the Children's Court. The committal court held an inquiry and found that the opponent No. 2 was at the material date below 18 years of age and was therefore a child. It therefore directed that the opponent No. 2 should be tried by the Children's Court Jamnagar. Against that order the present petitioner filed Criminal Revision Application No. 13 of 1971 in the Court of Sessions at Jamnagar. The learned Sessions Judge dismissed that application on merits. The present petitioner therefore filed in this High Court Criminal Revision Application No. 196 of 1971. Mr. Justice J. M. Sheth decided it by his judgment on 30th June 1971. He set aside the order of the courts below and directed the committal court to make a fresh inquiry into the matter in light of the observations made by him in his judgment. The committal court thereupon held a fresh inquiry and by its order dated 6th September 1971 again held that the opponent No. 2 at the material date was a child within the meaning of the Saurashtra Children Act 1954 The present petitioner challenged that order in Criminal Revision Application No. 104 of 1971 which he filed before the Court of Sessions at Jamnagar. The learned Sessions Judge rejected it on merits.

(3.) It is under these circumstances that the present Revision Application has been filed by the petitioner.