HARINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision filed against the order dated 7.8.1997 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mansa in Crl. Misc. No. Nil, dated 15.11.1996 in the case "Roop Singh son of Chhina Singh resident of Tamkot, Police Station Sadar Mansa v. Harinder Singh son of Gurcharan Singh son of Gurdial Singh resident of Mansa", whereby the application moved by Harinder Singh, petitioner, who was respondent in the case for the Ossification Test was declined. Learned counsel for the revisionist states that question of minority of Harinder Singh was involved in the said case and in order to determine the radiological age of the revisionist, Ossification Test was necessary. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mansa declined the request of the revisionist on the ground that in his opinion, in the circumstances of the case, Ossification Test was not necessary. It has been held by the Chief Judicial Magistrate as under :-

(2.) A perusal of the reasons given by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mansa will go to show that they are wholly irrelevant and out of context. The mere apprehension that Ossification Test was likely to delay and prolong the trial of the case and that this application had to be moved earlier were not sufficient cause for declining the Ossification Test. The view taken by the court below that Ossification Test was not necessary and the matter of age could be proved by any other evidence is also not a reasonable and sound view in law. The order which has been impugned in this revision, thus suffers from illegality in approach and is not in accordance with the settled principles of law. In fact, it is the accused who can lay a grievance of the trial being prolonged. At the same time, however, it has to be remembered that the plea of minority is an important defence taken in the case. If it is prima facie established by the evidence, which in the instant case is sought to be medical evidence based on Ossification Test, the same will have bearing on defence case. As such, the trial court ought to have permitted the petitioner to have Ossification Test for determination of his radiological age. In view of what has been discussed above, this revision has considerable merit and is allowed. The impugned order dated 7.8.1997 is set aside. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mansa is directed to get the Ossification Test of the revisionist done in order to enable him to substantiate his claim of minority. Let the copy of this order be communicated to Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mansa at an early date. Revision allowed.