BARKAT ALI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revisionist has assailed the order dated 21.02.2015 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Sultanpur in S.T.No.307 of 2004, whereby the learned court below has rejected the application of the revisionist for declaring him as juvenile.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the opposite party no.2 lodged a First Information Report on 07.03.2004 and in pursuance thereof the revisionist was arrested by the police on 10.03.2004. However, on 11.03.2004, the revisionist was released, but on 15.03.2004, he was again arrested with a fire arm which was allegedly used in the commission of crime. The revisionist claimed himself to be juvenile before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sultanpur and also filed a copy of the transfer certificate and mark-sheet issued by the school in which the date of birth of the revisionist was mentioned as 25.12.1986. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate by the order dated 31.03.2004 declared the revisionist as juvenile but rejected his bail application on 02.04.2004. The revisionist preferred a bail application before the Sessions Judge, Sultanpur in which the learned Sessions Judge observed that in the absence of Juvenile Justice Board, the Chief Judicial Magistrate was not competent to declare the revisionist as juvenile. The learned Sessions Judge referred the revisionist to the Chief Medical Officer, Sultanpur for determination of his age. The Chief Medical Officer submitted his report on 03.07.2004 in which he was found to be about 18 years of age. Since the occurrence had taken place four years prior to the report of the Chief Medical Officer, therefore, the learned Sessions Judge found that the revisionist was not below 18 years of age at the time of occurrence and on this ground the bail application was rejected.

(3.) Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the revisionist preferred Criminal Revision No.395 of 2004 before this Court which was allowed and it was directed that the juvenality of the revisionist be decided again in accordance with the provisions of Juvenile Justice Act. The revisionist then moved the second bail application before the Sessions Judge, Sultanpur which was allowed and the revisionist was released on bail. Thereafter the revisionist again moved an application for declaring him as juvenile before the trial court which was rejected on 23.05.2006 on the ground that the age of the revisionist has already been determined by the Sessions Judge while considering his bail application. Thereafter, he again moved an application for declaring him as juvenile which was rejected on 10.07.2008. Learned court found that after the orders of the learned Sessions Judge, no further consideration can be done with regard to the juvenality of the revisionist as the order of the Session Judge has become final.