SANJEEV Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Arun Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State are present.

(2.) This criminal revision has been preferred against judgment and order dated 23/4/1998 passed by the Special Judge EC Act, Mainpuri whereby application number 86 - A of the revisionist Sanjeev Kumar involved in crime no. 399 of 89 for the offences under sections 147, 148, 149, 307 and 302 IPC and also in crime no. 400 of 1989 for the offence under section 25 of Arms Act relating to PS Kotwali, Mainpuri seeking transmission of the case to juvenile court, has been rejected.

(3.) The grounds set up in the revision are that at the time of the alleged occurrence i.e. on 15/07/1989 the revisionist was minor, therefore the Special Judge EC Act was not competent to decide this fact as to whether the revisionist was a juvenile or not under sections 7 (2) of the Juvenile Justice Act. The learned Special Judge EC Act was not competent to hold an enquiry into the question as to whether the accused was juvenile or not on the date of occurrence. The revisionist had raised preliminary objection through his counsel before the Special Judge but the same was rejected. Even if it be taken that the Special Judge had power to decide the juvinility, the revisionist was not given any opportunity to produce the evidence in support of his claim, hence the impugned order was arbitrary illegal and against the provisions of law. The revisionist was ready to produce all evidence in support of his claim that he was a juvenile at the time of alleged occurrence. It is further stated in the grounds that even the prosecution had failed to adduce any relevant documents about the date of birth of the revisionist, hence the impugned judgment and order dated 23/04/1998 deserved to be set aside.