MOHAMMED BIN NASAR Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by A-1 is filed against the judgment of the learned IV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad in S.C.No.541 of 1992 convicting the accused for an offence punishable under Section-302 IPC and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life, while acquitting A-2. S.C.No.541 of 1992 arose out of a charge-sheet that was filed by the Inspector of Police, Team-I, DD, Hyderabad before the XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad who registered it as P.R.C.No.4 of 1992 and committed the same to the Sessions Judge. Accused No.1 is also an accused in S.C.No.655 of 1993 on the file of the IV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. In the said case, an application was filed on behalf of the accused that he is a minor and the Court of Sessions has no jurisdiction to try the case. The same was numbered as Crl.M.P.No.1149 of 1995 on the file of the IV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. The learned Sessions Judge after hearing both sides found that as on the date of the alleged offence i.e., 17/18-10-1990, the accused had not completed 16 years of age. While so observing, he held that the accused therein is a juvenile offender and the IV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge cannot try the offence therein; that the Juvenile Court constituted under Juvenile Justice Act 1986 is the only competent authority to inquire into the allegations made against the accused. The learned Sessions Judge further directed that the accused be produced before the concerned Juvenile Court and shall be shifted from the jail to the Observation Home for Boys and he shall stay there till he is released on bail. In Criminal Revision No.211 of 1996, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District by exercising suo motu powers held that Accused No.l in this appeal, who is also accused in P.R.C.No.273 of 1993, is a Juvenile as on the date of offence namely as on 17/18-10-1990 and that he has to be tried only by the Juvenile Court and not by the other Court and further directed that the accused shall be produced before the Special Court (VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad) which has been notified to deal with the Juvenile Justice Act.

(2.) The alleged offence in this appeal was committed on 17/18-10-1990. When the matter reached for trial, no efforts were made from the accused side that he is a Juvenile and the IV Additional Metropolitan Sessions "Court had no jurisdiction to try the case and it has to be tried only by the Juvenile Court. However, an attempt was made at the time of arguments that the accused is a juvenile arid he has to be tried by the Juvenile Court and not by the Sessions Court. The same was not considered. Now Sri Mohd.Abdul Faheem, learned Counsel for the accused appellant brought to our notice the earlier orders of the IV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge and the Additional Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District declaring the accused as a juvenile and contends that he has to be tried only by the Juvenile Court and not by the Metropolitan Sessions or the Sessions Judge. If this point was raised at the time of trial, the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge would have considered it, But the lapse on the part of the Counsel shall not go against the accused. It is proper for this Court to direct the Juvenile Court constituted under the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 to try the allegations made against the Accused No.1.

(3.) The conviction and sentence ordered by the learned IV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad in S.C.No.541 of 1992 are hereby set aside and the case is remitted to the Juvenile Court (VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad) to try the offence against the accused-appellant. If he is in jail, the authorities shall produce him before the Juvenile Court immediately. Regarding the custody of the accused, the Juvenile Court shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986.