NEELU CHAURASIA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State.

(2.) Learned trial Court examined the doctor and came to the conclusion that the marks-sheet did not disclose that the revisionist appeared as a regular candidate or as a private candidate and, therefore, the marks-sheet was ignored and on the basis of statement of the doctor, revisionist was declared not to be a juvenile on the date of incident and consequently the application was rejected.

(3.) Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that no proper inquiry was conducted by learned Additional Sessions Judge in accordance with Section 7A of the Act. Except the doctor, no other witness was examined by the trial Court. If learned Additional Sessions Judge was not satisfied with the high school marks sheet, he should have summoned the Principal as well as the records from the school to judge their correctness and validity.