MAHBOOD AHMAD Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this revision directed against the order dated 6:8.1991 passed by the Sessions Judge, Bijnor in Sessions Trial No. 12 of 1991 State v. Ayub Ahmad and Others the short point for consideration is if the case against the accused-revisionist has to be heard by the Sessions Judge Bijnor or by the Juvenile Court at Bijnor. With the consent of the learned Counsel of the parties, the revision has been heard on merits, I proceed to decide the same accordingly.

(2.) Section 2(h) of the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 defines a juvenile to mean a boy who has not attained the age of sixteen years. It was represented before the Sessions Judge, Bijnor that the revisionism was only 15 years of age on 1.8.1990 and, therefore, this case had to be heard by the Juvenile Court. By means of the impugned order, the Sessions Judge rejected this request on the ground that the revisionist appeared to be a major.

(3.) It has been contended on behalf of the revisionist that the bail to this accused who is revisionist before us for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C, which forms the subject matter of Sessions Trial No. 12 of 1991 was granted on the ground that he was a juvenile on the date of offence. Likewise it was further contended that the date of birth of the revisionist is 1.8.1975 and documentary evidence was also produced in this behalf but the learned Sessions Judge observed that the accused-revisionist appeared to be the major.