ERATI LAXMAN Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner assails the order dated 11-4-2000 passed by the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Nalgonda, in S.C.No. 425 of 1994. Under the impugned order the Court below came to the conclusion that the respondent therein was not juvenile. While coming to such a conclusion the Court below had taken the date of offence as the criterian for reckoning the age, of course, the Court relied on a Bench judgment of this Court, which had held that it was the date on which the offence said to have been committed was relevant but not the date on which the juvenile was brought before the Court. However, the Apex Court in Arnit Das vs. State of Bihar1 has come to a different conclusion. It is the date on which a person is brought before the competent authority is the relevant date and the age of the said person is required to be determined so as to find whether he is a juvenile and the date of commission of offence is immaterial. THE competent authority shall proceed to hold enquiry as to the age of that person and determine the same with reference to the date of appearance of the person before it or by reference to the date when person was brought before it under any provisions of the Act. In view of the latest pronouncement of the Apex Court, the order impugned against is not sustainable in law. THEre is no material on record to show on which date the Revision petitioner is produced before the competent Court. Under the circumstances, it is expedient to remit the matter back to the Court of the First Additional Sessions Judge, Nalgonda, for conducting fresh enquiry in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court referred to supra.

(2.) IN the result, the Revision Petition is allowed, the order impugned is hereby set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Court below for fresh disposal in accordance with the judgment passed by the Apex Court as early as possible.