KAMIL Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the order dated 12-6-1991, passed by the Ist Additional District and Sessions Judge, rejecting the application (88 kha) of the accused-applicant.

(2.) The accused applicant and one Raju moved an application 88 kha, on 12-6-l991, before the lower court praying that their trial be separated from other co-accused and be transferred to the Juvenile Court in accordance with law. It was also prayed that suitable orders be passed for holding an enquiry by the Chief Judicial Magistrate or by the said court itself as contemplated under S. 5, read with Ss. 20 / 32 of the Juvenile Justice Act. Affidavit and papers in support of proof in regard to age, were also filed . Authorities were cited on behalf of the revisionist before the lower court. The lower court considered the authorities cited on behalf of the revisionist and came to the conclusion that there was no question of separating the case or holding an enquiry, because when in defence the accused give their evidence in support of their age, then it would be decided at the time of final sentence. In the opinion of the lower court, the applicants do not get any benefit of the rulings at this stage. The crime was committed before Juvenile Justice Act came into force and, therefore, the lower court held that Children Act, would be applicable. Section 63 of the U.P. Children Act, 1951, provides joint trial of the child and the adult and that the sentence, if any, awarded to the child shall be in accordance with the provisions of this Act. In the result, the application 88 kha, was rejected.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and have considered the submissions made before me.