RAJU ALIAS RAJENDRA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this criminal revision petition under S.397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, "the Code"), the petitioners have challenged the Order dated 5-5-2005 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ratangarh, Camp Suratgarh (for short, "the trial Court") in Sessions Case No. 11/2000, by which the learned trial Court dismissed the application filed by the petitioners under S.20 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (for short, "the Act").

(2.) PETITIONERS are facing trial for the offences punishable under S.307, S.325, S.323, S.148, S.149 IPC for an incident which took place on 26-1-2000. On 21-3-2005, petitioners submitted an application under S.20 of the Act with a prayer that they being juvenile on the date of occurrence, the case pending against them may be transferred to Juvenile Board for trial. In support of the application, the petitioners submitted the photostat copies of the marks sheets of Secondary Examination issued by the Board of Secondary Education, wherein the date of birth of petitioner Raju alias Rajendra has been shown as 20-3-1983 and that of petitioner Pema Ram as 5-1-1983. The application was opposed by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the ground that the offences were committed by the petitioners on 26-1-2000 whereas the Act of 2000 came into force w.e.f. 1-4-2001 and the application under S.20 of the Act has been filed for delaying the trial. The learned trial Court, vide impugned order dated 5-5-2005, dismissed the application under S.20 of the Act filed by the petitioners.

(3.) THE application under S.20 of the Act was filed on 21-3-2005 along with the photostat copies of marks sheets issued by the Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Ajmer. The petitioners were provided opportunity to lead evidence in support of the application and matter was posted for the evidence of petitioner in support of said application on 23-3-2005, 7-4-2005 and thereafter on 21-4-2005 but the petitioners did not lead any evidence and ultimately, on 21-4-2005, the evidence was closed on an assertion on behalf of the petitioners that they do not want to lead any evidence. Thus, except the photostat copies of marks sheets, there was nothing on record before the trial Court for determination of age of the petitioners.