MAYANK RAJPUT Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision has been filed by the accused against the order dated 17th Oct. 1996 passed by III Additional Sessions Judge, Bijnor, rejecting the application that his case should be sent to the Court of Juvenile Judge for trial as he is a juvenile and in view of the provisions of Section of the Juvenile Justice Act (hereinafter called 'the Act') he cannot be tried with the other accused.

(2.) Accused Mayank along with other accused was named in the F.I.R. and he was committed to session. At the time of trial the accused- revisionist moved an application stating that he was born on 1/07/1980 and, therefore, he had not completed 16 years of age on the date of occurrence of offence. The State Counsel contested the application stating that he had completed 16 years of age before the date of occurrence and thus he was not a juvenile. The learned Additional Sessions Judge gave opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence. The accused examined his mother Smt. Prem Bala, who stated that the date of birth of the accused was 1/07/1980. The accused relied on the date of birth recorded in school certificate as also in the transfer certificate. On the contrary State relied on the copy of the bail order passed by the High Court rejecting the plea that the accused was below 16 years on the date of occurrence relying on an extract of the electoral roll according to which the accused had completed 16 years on the date of occurence of offence. The learned Additional Sesions Judge on appreciation of the evidence held that the accused was not a juvenile and, therefore, he could not be tried separately. Felt aggrieved with the order the accused preferred this revision.

(3.) I have heard Sri Viresh Mishra, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Ramji Saxena, learned counsel for the complainant and learned Additional Government Advocate.