DALJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - Vide this order two petitions Cri. Revision No. 361 of 1991 and Cri. Misc. No. 6043-M of 1991, which are correlated, would be disposed of together. Petitioner Daljit Singh alone has filed these two petitions. Hereinafter the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 would be referred to as the Act 'and Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 as' Code.

(2.) The factual position is that an occurrence is alleged to have taken place on 19-10-1990 resulting in lodging of an F. I. R. No. 141 dated 20-10-1990 for offences under Ss. 302/ 324/ 34, IPC with P. S. Mohali, Tehsil Kharar, District Ropar. The petitioner along with two other co-accused was involved in the alleged heinous crime of murder of Raj Kumar alias Raju. As the ordinary law takes its course, the petitioner along with his co-accused was arrested in the case. Presumbly the accused persons after their arrest were produced before the Ilaqua Magistrate concerned. After completion of the investigation and filing of the challan papers etc. before the Magistrate, the petitioner and his co-accused were committed to the Court of Session at Ropar to face a regular trial under the 'Code'. The learned Sessions Judge took cognizance of the matter, framed charges against the accused under Ss. 302/ 324/ 34, IPC vide order dated 22-4-1991 and also fixed the case for recording of prosecution evidence on 25-5-1991. During the pendency of the proceedings before the learned Sessions Judge, Daljit Singh, petitioner moved an application under S. 439, Cr. P. C. for the grant of bail during the pendency of the trial. In the bail application, it was inter alia stated by the petitioner that he was below 16 years of age at the time of alleged commission of offence and sought release of bail on that ground. In support of this assertion, he, filed a photo copy of his matriculation certificate dated 31-12-1990, wherein his date of birth is entered, as 27-2-1975. According to this certificate purported to have been issued by Punjab School Education Board of the matriculation examination, his ago conies to 15 years and 8 months on the date of the alleged occurrence. In addition to this bail application, he had also moved an application dated 19-4-1991 (Annexure P-2 with Crl. R. No. 361 of 1991), wherein it was specifically alleged that the petitioner was a Juvenile being less than 16 years of age at the time of occurrence and was entitled to be tried by a Juvenile Court only.

(3.) On the aforesaid application dated 19-4-1991, the learned Sessions Judge passed the order dated 22-4-1991 against which present Crl. Revision No. 361 of 1991 has been filed in this Court. The contention of the petitioner that he was to be dealt with under the provisions of the Act, being less than 16 years of age at the time of occurrence was primarily declined on the ground that the provisions of the "Act" in question are not applicable in view of the provisions of S. 27 of the "Code". Accordingly, the application dated 19-4-1991 was rejected and it was ordered that the petitioner who had already been charged be proceeded against for the offences under the procedure as laid down in the "Code". Similarly against the order dated 26-4-1991, declining bail to the petitioner, the petitioner had filed Crl. Micsc. No. 6043-M of 1991 for the grant of bail only. Hence both these petitions are today before me.