DHRUP NARAIN CHAUDHARY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision application is directed against the order dated 28-9-2001 recorded by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Siwan in Maharajganj (G.B. Nagar) P.S. Case No. 26 of 1999 as well against the order dated 19-4-2002 recorded by 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Siwan in Cr. Appeal No. 57 of 2001 by which the aforesaid order of the learned lower Court was confirmed.

(2.) The brief history of the case is that the petitioner was an accused in the aforesaid case which was also under Section 302 of the Penal Code, allegedly having given knife blow to the deceased. The petitioner took a plea that on the date of occurrence he was a juvenile, hence should be given benefits of the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 ("the Act" in short), the date of occurrence being 3-3-1999. As will appear from the annexed order of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Siwan dated 28-9-2001 that the enquiry under Section 32 of the Act was conducted by the then Chief Judicial Magistrate, Siwan who had held, by order dated 28-7-1999, the petitioner not to be a juvenile. Against that, Cr. Appeal No. 59 of 1999 was heard by the Sessions Judge, Siwan who directed the lower Court to ascertain the age by constituting a Medical Board and to pass a fresh order obtaining the medical report, giving opportunity to the defence also to adduce evidence. That was done by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Siwan who by order dated 7-6-2000 again declared the petitioner not to be a juvenile on the date of occurrence. The consequent Criminal Appeal No. 44 of 2000, heard by the 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Siwan was allowed by order dated 22-9-2000, remanding back the matter to the learned lower Court with a direction to record a fresh order in presence of the accused, after giving him proper opportunity to be heard. This was how the impugned order dated 28-9-2001 was passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate.

(3.) From the aforesaid order it appears that 4 witnesses were examined on behalf of the petitioner in course of enquiry whose evidences were taken into account. The Court also examined Court witnesses No. 1, Headmaster of a School where the petitioner was a student who said that according to the Admission Register the date of birth of the petitioner was 24-12-1982. Another Court witness was a teacher in another school were also the petitioner had studied. According to the Admission Register of this School the date of birth was same, i.e. 24-12-1982 also supported by the transfer certificate granted by the earlier school. The learned Court examined the evidences that had come on the record and held, believing the entries made in the admission registers, that the petitioner on the date of occurrence was above 16 years of age, hence not a juvenile under the Act. The learned 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Siwan who heard appeal against the order of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Siwan concurred with the findings arrived at by the learned lower Court which did not give more importance to the opinion of the Medical Board. This matter when came up for revision before a bench of this Court, presided over by a single Judge, the bench recorded in the order dated 25-6-2000 that the learned Counsel for the petitioner had submitted that though the offence was committed when the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 ("the Act of 2000" in short) was not in force, still the petitioner would be governed by the said Act. In view of the importance of the matter, the case was referred to a Division Bench which is how this matter came up before us.