MD. SUIFUDDIN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged the order dated February 20, 2014 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge -cum -Judge, Special Court under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, Berhampore, Murshidabad in connection with N.D.P.S. Case No. 33 of 2009 by filing this revision under Sec. 401 read with Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It appears from the materials on record that the petitioner is facing trial before the court of learned Judge on the allegation of committing offence under S. 20(b)(ii)(c)/27A/29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The petitioner claimed for transfer of the case to the Juvenile Justice Board by raising the plea of juvenility before the trial court on September 5, 2012. Learned Judge of the trial court dismissed the application filed by the petitioner by turning down the plea of juvenility of the petitioner by passing order on February 20, 2014 which is under challenge in this revision. It appears from the impugned order under challenge in the revision that the petitioner relied on the birth certificate issued by Registrar of Births and Deaths, Dighabajar, S. D., Assam on May 25, 2012. On the other hand, the opposite party relied on the driving licence of the petitioner issued on January 24, 2007. While driving licence of the petitioner pointed out the date of birth as on June 25, 1988, the birth certificate issued by the Registrar of Births and Deaths of Dighabajar, S.D., Assam indicates the date of birth as on January 18, 1992. Learned Judge of the trial court did not rely on the said birth certificate as the petitioner applied for obtaining the birth certificate only on May 15, 2012, which is almost after 20 years of birth and after registration of this criminal case against the petitioner.

(2.) With the above factual matrix Mr. Chatterjee, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that learned Judge of the court below did not conduct the enquiry as laid down in Rule 12(3) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007. By referring to the said Rules Mr. Chatterjee submits that in the absence of matriculation certificate, learned Judge of the court below should have relied on the birth certificate of the petitioner as laid down in the Rules. The further submission of Mr. Chatterjee is that learned Judge cannot rely on the date of birth recorded in the driving licence issued in favour of the petitioner as the said document is absent from Rule 12(3) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007.

(3.) On the other hand, Mr. Dey, learned counsel for the Opposite Party contends that learned Judge of the trial court has followed the procedure laid down in Sec. 7A of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 for determination of age of the petitioner. According to Mr. Dey, learned Judge of the court below can consider the driving licence which was issued in favour of the petitioner for determination of date of birth of the petitioner.