UMMED SINGH Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant petition is for impugning the order dated 17th February, 2003 passed by 4th Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Shivpuri in criminal revision No.6/03, whereby the learned Judge has affirmed the order dated 19th December, 2002 passed by JMFC, Kolaras in criminal case No. 1184/02, by which the learned Magistrate has disposed of an application dated 16th December, 2002 filed on behalf of the petitioner with regard to ascertainment of his age.

(2.) On perusal of the order dated 19.12.02 of the learned Magistrate, it appears that initially a direction was given by him to Superintendent of sub-jail, Kolaras to get the examination done about the age of the petitioner. In compliance, the jailer sent ossification test report in which the age of the petitioner was shown as 21 years and age of the co-accused Sandeep was shown between 17 to 19 years. While accepting this report, it is observed by the learned Magistrate that the petitioner is not below 18 years. This order has been affirmed by the learned Judge vide impugned order. It is also observed in the impugned order that no academic record has been filed with regard to the age of the petitioner, hence, there is no error in accepting the age mentioned in the ossification test report.

(3.) While drawing attention at the observation of the Apex Court in Bhola Bhagat v. State of Bihar Shri Pateria has submitted that it is obligatory for the Court to hold an enquiry for determining the age and no such enquiry has been conducted. The work of conducting enquiry cannot be assigned to a jailer by a Magistrate.