RAM GOPAL Vs. HARJINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is the second round of litigation between the parties in this Court. By my previous order dated 20.9.2010, I had directed that age of the petitioner -respondent herein be determined in accordance with law as the respondent had claimed protection under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. It is pursuant to that order that the order challenged in these proceedings was passed by the learned Sessions Judge holding that the petitioner was a minor on the date of commission of the offence. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has urged that the material relied upon by the learned trial Court is per se insufficient to establish his age.

(2.) THE learned trial Court has relied upon evidence of AW1 Rakesh Kumar, Clerk, Municipal Corporation, Jalandhar who proved the date of birth of the respondent as 5.8.1987. The other evidence was that of Mr. Baldev Singh, Accountant, DAV Public School, Una who proved Ext. AW2/A, which was the record of admission and withdrawal register and according to which, his date of birth is 2.8.1987.

(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioner also urges that the learned trial Court has been remiss in accepting the date of birth in the year 1987 for the reason that the petitioner -respondent has been using different dates of birth as it suits his convenience. He particularly refers to the affidavit of Gurcharan Singh, father of the appellant -respondent, wherein he has mentioned his date of birth as 30.5.1983 stating that the respondent was born at Ranchi (Bihar). Learned counsel also relies upon the account opening form Annexure P -5 with the petition wherein the respondent had opened a bank account with the Punjab National Bank, School leaving certificate (Annexure P -4) issued by the Principal/Headmaster of S. Atma Public School, B.M.S. Nagar, G.T. Daba Road, Ludhiana where again he has shown his date of birth as 30.5.1983. Learned counsel submits that affidavit of the father is conclusive evidence that the respondent was born on 30.5.1983 at Ranchi and not in Jalandhar as urged. He submits that it is a clear fraud which has been practiced on the Court and the respondent and his father are taking convenient stand(s) as suits them. For the purpose of protection under the Juvenile Justice Act, the respondent shows his age as not having attained majority while he has opening bank accounts etc. in his own name and was obviously a major as required by law. I have considered the respective contentions of the parties. I do not intend to interfere in these proceedings for the reason that I find that the learned trial Court has determined the date of birth on the basis of evidence produced before it, but I do find substance in the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Protection in law cannot be granted to a person who has adopted different/dubious stands. The present case arises out of proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and it would suit the respondent to claim the age which would put him beyond the ambit of the jurisdiction of the criminal court. But the fact remains that he has opened bank account with the Punjab National Bank and his father has been submitting affidavit(s) stating different ages. So far as the bank account form is concerned, it does not state the age of the petitioner but nonetheless the account could have been opened in his personal name only if he had been a major. The affidavit filed is also a convenient document which suits the respondent. In these circumstances, the petitioner herein is at liberty to institute appropriate proceedings in accordance with law if a case is so made out against the person responsible for fabricating the documents showing different date(s) of birth. Petition stands disposed of.