SHYAM LAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE instant revision petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner challenging the order dt. 27.1.2012 passed by the learned Special Judge (NDPS Act) Cases, Jodhpur in Criminal Misc. Case No. 249/2011, whereby, the application filed by the petitioner for being treated as a juvenile and for being tried under the provisions of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 has been rejected. Briefly stated the facts necessary for the disposal of this revision petition are that the petitioner was arrested on 02.04.2010 in connection with an FIR/CR No. 78/2010, registered at the Police Station Jaitaran for the offence under Sec. 8 /15 of the NDPS Act. The police after investigation filed a charge -sheet against the petitioner for the said offence.

(2.) THE allegation of the prosecution as per the charge -sheet was that the petitioner along with co -accused Deepak were apprehended from a trailer, in which, contraband poppy straw weighing 420 kilogram was being transported. The petitioner moved an application in the trial Court on 20.5.2011 claiming therein that he was a juvenile on the date of the seizure i.e. 2.4.2010 as his date of birth was 15.6.1992. A transfer certificate issued by the Government Primary School, Hingonia Nada, Khejadli Kalan was filed in support of the application. The learned trial Court initiated an enquiry on the basis of the application filed by the petitioner. The prosecution in counter to the application filed by the petitioner placed on record the driving license of the petitioner issued by the R.T.O., Jodhpur. As per the said document, which has been marked as Exhibit A -3/1 at the trial, the date of birth of the petitioner has been mentioned as 6.7.1988. During the course of the enquiry, the documents of the school where the petitioner claimed to have studied were summoned and two witnesses were examined in support of the application. One being Janwata Ram, the father of the petitioner and the other being Smt. Laxmi Bishnoi, the Principal of the Government Primary School, Hingonia Nada, Khejadli Kalan. The petitioner's father Janwta Ram in his examination -in -chief stated that his son Shyam Lal was born on 15.6.1992 and studied in the Government Primary School, Hingonia Nada, Khejadli Kalan. The petitioner's transfer certificate was exhibited by the witness. In cross -examination, the witness was confronted with the certified copy of the petitioner's driving license, on which, the witness admitted that the photograph appended on the driving license was that of his son i.e. the petitioner Shyam Lal. Learned Public Prosecutor has also exhibited the mark -sheets of the petitioner issued by the District Education and Training Institute, Jodhpur, wherein, the date of birth of the petitioner is different from the date of birth mentioned in the transfer certificate Exhibit 1 -A. Smt. Laxmi Bishnoi was examined in support of the application as AW -2. She in her testimony stated that she was working as the Principal of the Government Primary School, Hingonia Nada, Khejadli Kalan since 26th September, 2007. She further stated that the entry in the school documents made at the time of Shyam Lal's admission in the school were to the effect that his date of birth was 15.6.1992. She has proved the admission form Exhibit 2 -A, application Exhibit 3 -A filed by Janwata Ram, father of the petitioner. Exhibit 1 -A, the transfer certificate and Exhibit 4 -A, the scholar entry register. In her cross examination, she has admitted that the entry No. 45 in the scholar register showing admission of the petitioner in the school on 6.7.2000 was not made by her. She has also admitted that in the last column of signature of the Principal in the same register, she had signed at mark C to D.

(3.) THE learned trial Court in pursuance to the enquiry and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties came to a conclusion that the date of birth mentioned in the school record of the petitioner was doubtful. The learned trial Judge held that petitioner Shyam Lal himself did not appear for the purpose of contesting the prosecution's case regarding his driving license. It would not be out of place to mention here that when the enquiry proceedings were initiated, by that time, even as per the date of birth claimed by the petitioner in his application, he had already crossed the age of 18 years and thus was a competent witness. Be that as it may, the learned trial Court rejected the application filed by the petitioner by a detailed reasoned order dt. 27.1.2012.