GOVIND Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 is directed against an order dated 13th May 2011 in Criminal Revision No. 21/2011 passed by the Fourth Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Guna, M. P. allowing thereby the revision filed by the State of Madhya Pradesh while setting aside the order passed in Criminal Case No. 217/10 dated 23/11/10 of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Guna and remanding the case to that Court for re-determine the age of the accused after following the procedure laid down in Rule 12(3) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2007.

(2.) The facts necessary for the disposal of this petition are that a Crime No. 217/10 was registered against the accused-petitioner Govind for commission of offence punishable under Sections 302, 452, 147, 148, 149, 323, 324 and 325 of I. P. C. by police station Dharnabda for causing death of one Hukum Singh and injuring persons namely, Geetabai, Ramjane, Bana Sahab Madurn on 22nd October, 2010 at around 9 in the night, in village Kanerachak and after investigation, the accused was taken into custody. During investigation, it was pleaded by the accused that he was a juvenile at the time of commission of offence. On submission by him an application under Section 12 of the said Act, he was sent for medical examination and after getting report about him of juvenile, his case was transmitted to the Juvenile Board vide order dated 23/11/10 for proceeding further in accordance with the provisions. It was this order, which was challenged by the respondent-State in a revision before the Revisional court. The Revisional court without issuing notice and hearing the accused-petitioner (herein) set aside the finding of its subordinate court and remitted the case back for re-determination of his age. Hence, this revision before this court.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the said order is passed against the provisions of Section 398 of Cr. P. C. , as no opportunity of hearing was given to the accused-petitioner before reaching at a conclusion. It is further argued that the learned revisional court did not even think it proper to make an enquiry as contemplated under Section 32 of the Act and straightway set aside the order of the trial court. Hence, the impugned order is patently illegal, arbitrary and deserves to be set aside.