INDRADEO HAZRA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

(2.) Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 28.9.2007 passed by learned the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Giridih, in G.R. No.1677 of 1989 / T.R. No.37 of 2007, whereby upon an enquiry, learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate has held that the petitioner was not a juvenile on the date of occurrence i.e., 20.10.1989, as on that date his age was about 16 years and 9 months. The appeal filed against the said order has been rejected by the learned 1 st Additional Sessions Judge, Giridih, by the Judgment dated 19.3.2010 in Cr. Appeal No.101 of 2007.

(3.) The petitioner has been made accused in Jamua P.S. Case No.195 of 1989, corresponding to G.R. No.1677 of 1989 for the alleged offences under Sections 302 read with Sections 201 and 498A of the IPC and 3 / 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The date of the alleged occurrence is 20.10.1989. The petitioner took the plea that he was a juvenile on that date and accordingly, an enquiry was made in the matter. It would be appropriate to refer to an order dated 18.6.1990 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Giridih, in B.P. No.261 of 1990, while considering the bail application of the petitioner and the same plea, of being juvenile, was taken before the learned Sessions Judge. The report of the Civil Surgeon was called for, which showed that the age of the petitioner was 15 to 16 years approximately. Learned Sessions Judge also got the petitioner produced in the Court, and in the assessment of the learned Sessions Judge also, the petitioner was under 16 years of age. However, learned Sessions Judge did not record any findings as to the age of the petitioner, and the matter was sent for enquiry.