MAHESH Vs. STATE OF U.T. CHANDIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present revision petition has been filed for quashing of order dated 30.05.2014 as well as order dated 15.07.2014 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh, whereby, the application dated 31.03.2014 of the petitioner for declaring him juvenile and application dated 07.06.2014 for conducting his ossification test has been declined.

(2.) AS per case of the petitioner, he was juvenile at the time of alleged occurrence. The alleged incident occurred on 04.01.2014 and FIR No. 7 was registered on that very day under Sections 302, 506, 201 read with Section 34 I.P.C. at Police Station Sector 11, Chandigarh. The date of birth of the petitioner is 26.12.1996. However, during pendency of the trial, the petitioner moved an application dated 31.03.2014 for declaring him juvenile, keeping in view his date of birth, which is supported by birth certificate dated 07.01.2014 and also school leaving certificate dated 18.02.2014. Reply of the application was filed by the State. The application moved by the petitioner was dismissed on 30.05.2014 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh. The petitioner also moved an application dated 07.06.2014 praying for conducting his ossification test to prove the factum of juvenility but the same, too, was dismissed on 15.07.2014.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned orders have been passed contrary to the provisions of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (here -in -after referred to as 'the Act'). No reasoning, whatsoever, has been mentioned in the impugned orders while dismissing the application of the petitioner for declaring him juvenile. Simply, it has been mentioned that only photostat copy of the document was placed on record. Similarly, while declining prayer for ossification test, it has been mentioned that the applicant was not juvenile on the date of alleged occurrence and in case, the ossification test is ordered, there would be a margin of two years on either side and as such, the ossification test of the petitioner is not required.