SHRIRAM RAWAT Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal revision u/S 397 r/W 401 of Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the order dtd. 28/5/2021 passed by the Court of 2nd Additional Special Judge, Mandsaur in Special S.T. No. 42/2020, whereby the applicant's application filed u/S 94 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 [in short JJ Act, 2015] for transferring his case to Juvenile Justice Board for trial was rejected.

(2.) Facts giving rise to this revision petition are that on 10/10/2020, the applicant alongwith other co-accused persons was found to have 60 kg of poppy straw in their illegal possession and is facing criminal trial in Special S.T. No. 42/2020 for the offences punishable u/S 8(c)/15(c) of NDPS Act. In the said case, a chargsheet was filed on 16/12/2020, and charges were framed on 18/3/2021, against the applicant and other co-accused persons, but till then applicant was not represented by any counsel, and on 17/5/2021, the first time his counsel appeared and filed his vakalatnama and found applicant's age below 18 years. Then, on 18/5/2021, he moved an application u/S 94 of the JJ Act, 2015 before the Trial Court for transferring the case to the Juvenile Justice Board for trial. Learned trial Court conducted an inquiry and after getting verified the documents filed by the applicant in support of his aforesaid application, vide order dtd. 28/5/2021 rejected applicant's application on the ground that application claiming juvenility was filed after framing of charges. Secondly, the school scholar register entry with regard to the date of birth of the applicant is doubtful and as per his Aadhar Card, his date of birth is 24/3/2000, according to which he was major at the time of the incident.

(3.) Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned trial Court has committed an error of law while not taking into consideration the documents filed by the applicant in support of his application filed u/S 94 of the JJ Act, 2015. He further submits that exclusive jurisdiction for determination of the age of the applicant lies with the Juvenile Justice Board constituted under the Act of 2015 as held in the case of Indra Singh Vs. State of M.P. [ 2017(1) MPWN 105]. Hence, the learned trial Court has committed jurisdictional error in dismissing the application for determination of the age of the applicant. The impugned order is patently illegal and thus, is liable to be set aside.