PREM SHARMA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present revision petition has been filed by petitioner -Prem Sharma against the order dated 18.3.2014 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar vide which the application of the petitioner for declaring him as juvenile in conflict with law has been dismissed.

(2.) A case bearing FIR No. 403 dated 2.9.2012 was registered under Sections 363, 366 & 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as "IPC") at Police Station Civil Lines, Amritsar against the petitioner on the statement of Som Pal on the allegations that his daughter has been enticed away by the petitioner on the pretext of marriage. During the course of investigation on 21.3.2013, the prosecutrix was recovered from the custody of the petitioner and on completion of the investigation, the report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "Cr.P.C.") was presented under Sections 363, 366 -A and 376 IPC.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned order primarily on two grounds. Firstly that the enquiry conducted by the learned trial Court is not in accordance with Rule 12(3)(b) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules"). He contended that the petitioner has produced the copy of his first attended school issued by the Principal of that school. Even the direction was given to verify the genuineness of that certificate but without getting the verification report, that certificate was illegally discarded. He further contended that the medical examination can only be ordered if the matriculation or equivalent certificate or the date of birth certificate issued from the school first attended is not available. Even the medical opinion is to be sought from the duly constituted medical board. He contended that in this case, no medical board was constituted. Only the opinion of a Radiologist was sought, which is also not in accordance with the Rule 12(3)(b) of the Rules. Thus, he contended that the impugned order is illegal and is not sustainable in the eyes of law.