VICKY SAO Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER has filed the instant revision application under Section 53 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 for setting aside the order dated 10.6.2008 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, FTC - VIth, Dhanbad whereby the petitioners prayer for sending his case for consideration of trial by the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Dhanbad, on the ground that the petitioner is below 18 years of age, was rejected.

(2.) THE petitioner was arrested in connection with the case registered for the offences under Sections 20, 22 and 29 of the N.D.P.S. Act. He was produced on arrest before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. Considering the petitioner to be an adult above 18 years of age by his physical appearance, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate remanded the petitioner to judicial custody. The case was eventually transferred to the court of Additions Sessions Judge, FTC -VIth - cum Special Judge, Dhanbad who was competent to try the offences under the N.D.P.S. Act. The petitioner filed a petition before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, stating that he is a juvenile below the age of 18 years of age and therefore, his case should be sent to the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Dhanbad for trial. In support of his age, the petitioner had filed school leaving certificate and birth certificate issued by the municipal authority. The learned Special Judge proceeded to inquire into the issue regarding the age of the petitioner and examined witnesses produced by the petitioner. However, after recording his observation that witnesses are not reliable and their evidences cannot be accepted, the learned court below referred the petitioner to the Medical Board for assessment of his age. The Medical Board submitted its report opining that the petitioners age was about 20 years. On the basis of the medical evidence, the learned Special Judge rejected the petitioners prayer for remanding his case to the Juvenile Justice Board and retained the case in his own file for proceeding.

(3.) COUNSEL for the State on the other hand, while controverting the grounds advanced by the petitioner, would offer support to the finding recorded by the court below in the impugned order. Learned Counsel submits that the learned court below was competent enough to make an inquiry regarding the age of the petitioner and for the purpose of such inquiry, it had the authority to refer the petitioner to the Medical Board for assessment of the petitioners age and therefore, there is no illegality or impropriety in the impugned order.