MOHAMMAD KALAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A resident of Raniganj Bihar, when produced before learned 3rd additional Sessions Judge, Jammu for his trial under Section 302 RPC projected his juvenility to oust the jurisdiction of the Court to hold the trial. Acting in accordance with the provisions of the Jammu and Kashmir Juvenile Justice Act, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the additional Sessions Judge directed the Chief judicial Magistrate, Jammu to hold inquiry as to the juvenility or otherwise of Mohammad Kalam in terms of the provisions of the Act. It appears that Mohammad Kalam had produced (1) a Birth Certificate issued by Dr. Debbrata Choudhary, Ex-Medical Officer, durgapur Steel Plant Mondal Medicine near Bhiringi T. N. School, Nachan Road, Durgapur and another certificate issued by Registrar durgapur Municipal Corporation under section 12/17 of the Registration of Birth and Deaths Act 1969 incorporating Mohammad Kalam's date of birth as Ist January 1987 to support his contention that he was a juvenile at the time of the alleged commission of offence. During the course of the inquiry, the Chief judicial Magistrate, considered it fit and proper to get petitioner Mohammad Kalam examined by Standing Medical Board of Government Medical College and Associated Hospital, Jammu, which after his examination had certified him to be more than twenty years of age at the time of the examination.

(2.) ACTING on the opinion of the Board, the Chief judicial Magistrate, held him to be more than seventeen years of age at the time of the commission of the offence, i. e. , on 11. 02. 2002 and accordingly, as desired, transmitted the records to the Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu. Aggrieved by the Chief Judicial Magistrate's order of 02. 07. 2005, the petitioner has approached this Court calling in question the findings of the Chief Judicial Magistrate whereby the petitioner had been held major. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner alone as none had opted to defend the state.

(3.) LEARNED Chief Judicial Magistrate appears to have been swayed by the concession made by Mrs. Surinder Kour, the petitioner's Advocate who, in view of the report of the Medical Board had opted not to lead any evidence in respect of the juvenility of the petitioner, in determining the age of the petitioner without holding any inquiry into it. Chief Judicial Magistrate's records indicate that he had opted to get the petitioner examined by the Medical Board as the genuineness of the certificates produced by the petitioner had been seriously disputed by the Government Prosecutor defending the State.