KAMLESH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant/ac ­cused has directed this revision under Sec ­tion 397 of the Code of Criminal Proce ­dure against the order dated 22-7-1994 passed by the Sessions Judge, Ratlam in S.T No. 227/1993 rejecting the application of the applicant for his trial by the Juvenile Court.

(2.) THE facts of the case in brief arc that a criminal case under Section 8/18 of the NDPS Act was registered against the ap ­plicant at Police Station Alote on the allegation that a contraband article was found in possession of the applicant. Applicant was arrested and later on he was released on bail by the orders of the Com ­petent Court. A challan was filed after hearing the arguments on charge and charge under Section 8/18 of the NDPS Act was framed against the applicant by the trial Court. The applicant thereafter filed an application and submitted that his age was below 16 years on the date of offence and, therefore, he cannot be tried by the Special Judge (Sessions Judge) and prayed that he should either be discharged or the case may be referred to the Juvenile Court for trial under the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986. In support of his application the applicant had also filed a copy of the horroscope and the affidavit of his father in connection with his date of birth. Despite numerous opportunities being given to the respondent-State, no reply or any document was filed showing thaUheapplicantwasabovel6yearsofage on the date of the offence and his case is triable by the Regular Special Court. The trial Court by its impugned order without holding any inquiry or recording any evidence, rejected the application filed on behalf of the applicant holding that it is not proved that applicant is below 16 years of age. Being aggrieved by the impugned order of the trial Court the applicant has filed this revision.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the applicant contended that a dispute in relation to the minor age of the applicant was raised on behalf of the applicant and the trial Court was duty bound to hold the inquiry and after giving the opportunity of leading the evidence only should have passed the speaking order with regard to the age of the applicant. But in the instant case the learned trial Court neither held any in ­quiry nor recorded the evidence and very curserily passed the impugned order and failed to exercise the jurisdiction in the proper way vested in him, under the law. Learned Counsel also submitted that if the age of the applicant is found below 16 years of age, in that case, in view of the provisions contained in Sections 5 and-7 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, would be applied to the case at hand and the Regular Court had no jurisdiction to try the instant case.