BIJENDRA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of this revision, the revisionist has challenged the legality of the judgment and order dated 11.8.2003 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 5, Deoria in S.T. No. 132 of 2000, State v. Vijendra, whereby the learned Additional Session Judge, has refused to separate the file of revisionist on the basis of his plea of juvenility. Heard Sri Mohan Tiwari, learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of the State and perused the record.

(2.) Learned Additional Sessions Judge has relied on a case law in Arninkdas v. State of Bihar,2000 SCC 482and has held that the relevant date for determining the age of an accused who is taking plea of juvenile, would be the date when he, for the first time appears before the Court and not the date of offence. One more ground on which the application of the revisionist has been rejected by lower Court is that the applicant/revisionist has not raised the plea of juvenility on the date when he had surrendered before the Court.

(3.) Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the revisionist has come before this Court and has questioned its legality on the following grounds: