IFTEKAR AHMAD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This quashing application has been preferred against the order dated 8.4.1997 whereby the petitioners case has been committed to the Court of Session along with other accused-persons of the case.

(2.) It has been submitted that the petitioners were minors at the time of occurrence and they were entitled to the privilege under the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986.

(3.) The-Impugned order itself suggests that the committing Court presided over by Sri R.B. Srivastava stated that the charge-sheeted accused-persons were being committed to the Court of session. However, it has further been stated in the impugned order itself that the petitioner No. 1, Iftakar Ahmed and petitioner No. 2, Sarwar Ahmed are minors. For minors there is a separate provision of trial under the Juvenile Justice Act by Special Court under the aforesaid Act and where there is no Special Court, the Chief Judicial Magistrates have been empowered to hold trial or minors under the Juvenile Justice Act. So, if the petitioner Court to see whether the petitioners were minors or not since the impugned order itself refers to the statement of the committing Court that the petitioners were minors, their commitment along with other accused-persons was illegal. Hence, I think the impugned order in not sustainable. It is accordingly set aside so far the petitioners are concerned. The committing Court or its successor is directed to hold a proper enquiry under the Juvenile Justices Act regarding the minority of the petitioners, Iftekar Ahmed and Sarwar Ahmed and thereafter if they are found to be not minors, their case shall be committed to the Court of Sessions and if they are found to be minors on the alleged date of occurrence, their case shall be referred to the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, who will hold proper trial under the Juvenile Justice Act.