JAI PRAKASH TIWARI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have heard Mr Servesh Kumar Mishra-learned counsel for the revisionist and Mr M.P. Rai-learned counsel for the respondents, and perused the record.

(2.) The revisionist challenges the order dated 29.10.2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Temporary Ex-cadre) Court No. 1, Fatehpur on the application of the accused-respondent No. 2, Subhadra Pathak, under section 7-A of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (herein-after referred to as 'The Act').

(3.) This is the second order passed on the application of respondent No. 2 claiming juvenility. The first order was passed by another Additional Sessions Judge rejecting the application. That order was challenged in Criminal Revision No. 2984 of 2012, which was allowed by this Court and the case was sent back to the lower court with the direction that a fresh inquiry be made in accordance with the observations made in the order of the revision, that is, the lower court was to ascertain whether the matriculation certificate and mark-sheet produced by the revisionist (accused) was genuine, and the date of birth shown in the certificate had any reasonable basis. The learned Additional Sessions Judge passed this order after taking evidence from both the sides and held the respondent No. 2 as juvenile. He adopted the procedure given in the Sub-rule 3 of Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 (herein-after referred to as 'The Central Rules') and rejected the evidence of the prosecution which included the certificates of school first attended, Junior High School, and High School failed.