PRAMOD KUMAR SETHI Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the order of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Rourkela in S.T. Case No. 123/31 of 1999 holding that the petitioner is not a juvenile in terms of Juvenile Jus- ticQa^ct, 1986, confirmed in Criminal Appeal No. 27 of 2001 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rourkela.

(2.) The case In nut-shell is that the petitioner along with another was accused of committing offences punishable under Sections 364, 302, 376(2)(g) & (f)/34 of the Indian Penal Code on 4-1-1999. He was arrested and produced before the learned S. D. J. M., Rourkela on 5-1-1999 in G.R. Case No. 3 of 1999. A prayer was made on 6-5-1999 before the learned Magistrate to send the petitioner to the juvenile Jail, since he was a juvenile as on the date. Charge-sheet was submitted on 20-5-1999 under the aforesaid sections and the case was committed to the Court of Session to be tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rourkela. A petition appears to have been filed on 2-3-2001 before'the'learned Addi- ; tional Sessions Judge by the accused petitioner that his date of birth being 25-5- 1983, he is a juvenile and as such to be tried under the Juvenile Justice Act. The learned Additional Sessions Judge directed the records of the case to be transmitted to the designated Juvenile Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum-Presiding Officer, Juvenile Court, Rourkela for determination of the age of the accused and furnish a report within two months.

(3.) The accused-petitioner was produced before the learned Additonal Chief Judicial Magistrae, Rourkela, the designated Juvenile Court on 24-3-2001. The learned Addl. C. J. M. by order dated 1-5-2001 held that the petitioner was a juvenile on the date of occurrence and as such to face the trial in the Juvenile Court. However, the case against the co-accused was split up and he faced his trial in regular Court. The State challenged the order dated 1-5-2001 of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge in Criminal Appeal No. 8 of 2001 and the learned Additional Sessions Judge by order dated 28-7-2001 allowed the appeal and remitted the matter to the Addl. C.J.M. The learned Addl. C.J.M. by order dated 13-9-2001, on enquiry and basing on the report of the Radiologist and occification test, held that the accused-petitioner was a juvenile. However, on the application of the State, the matted was reopened and relying on the decision of the Apex Court in Amit Das v. State of Bihar, AIR 2000 SC 2264 held that on the relevant date, when he was produced before the competent Court on 24-3-2001, the petitioner being aged 17 years, was not a juvenile within the meaning of the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act," 1986. The petitioner carried an appeal, Criminal Appeal No. 27 6f 2001, but the learned Additional Sessions Judge by order dated 4-1-2002 upheld the order. Hence the present revision. ;