Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 180 (PNJ)

Jitender Kumar v. State Of Punjab

2000-02-11

AMAR DUTT

body2000
Judgment Amar Dutt, J. 1. This petition has been filed to challenge the charge framed against the petitioner by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana on 5-7-1989. 2. The petitioner and one Chinda son of Khazan Singh were arrested and challenged by the Ludhiana Police in FIR 28 dated 14-1-1989 under Sections 302/ 34. IPC. The petitioner had approached this Court for grant of bail, which was granted to him in Cr. Misc.4668-M of 1989 decided on 28-7-1989 by A. P. Chowdliri, J. , on the ground that he was 15 years 4 months old at the time of alleged murder. The Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, had framed charge under Sections 302/34, IPC, against the petitioner and this order cannot be sustained in view of the fact that the Court was obliged to deal with the case of the petitioner under the provisions of Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). According to the petitioner the Juvenile Court is presided over by the Chief Judicial Magistrate and is assisted by Dr. Rajiv Gupta and, therefore, the Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana was not competent to deal with the case of the petitioner who was less than 16 years on the date of commission of the offence. 3. In the reply filed by the Inspector, it was asserted that at the time of his arrest, the petitioner had disclosed his age as 16/17 years to the arresting officer and by appearance also Jatinder Kumar appeared to the Sessions Judge as 17 years old. Since the petitioner did not produce any certificate of date of birth before the Court below, it was asserted on behalf of the respondent that the charge had rightly been framed. 4. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. 5. It is not disputed before me by the parties that in pursuance of the powers conferred on it by Sec.6 (2) of the Act, a Juvenile Court has been set up at the headquarters of the districts of Amritsar, Ludhiana, Bhatinda and Jalandhar, each of which is being presided over by the Chief Judicial Magistrate as the Principal Magistrate vide Punjab Government. Notification No.8/ 18/ 87 - 65w/ 13607 dated 9-12-1988. Sec.24 of the Act prohibits the trial of non-juvenile with a juvenile. Notification No.8/ 18/ 87 - 65w/ 13607 dated 9-12-1988. Sec.24 of the Act prohibits the trial of non-juvenile with a juvenile. The question as to whether any person who is charged of having committed any offence is a juvenile or not will have to be determined by the Juvenile Court as per the provisions of Sec.32 of the Act and in a case where the Juvenile Court comes to a conclusion that the person is a juvenile, his case will have to be tried and disposed of in accordance with the provisions of Sections 20 and 39 of the Act. In the present case of the Additional Sessions Judge had some doubt about the actual age of the petitioner he ought to have referred the matter to the Juvenile Court for determination of the age as per Sec.32 of the Act and only upon the petitioner not found to be a juvenile could he have proceeded to by him jointly with Chinda who is admittedly not a juvenile. In view of this the charge framed by the Court will have to be set aside and a direction issued to the Court to refer the case of the petitioner to the Juvenile Court at Ludhiana for determination of his age. Ordered accordingly. This enquiry the Court will complete within a period of one month, where after in case the petitioner is found to be a juvenile then his trial would be conducted separately under Sec.20 read with. Sec.39 of the Act and charges will be framed against him separately. If the petitioner is not found to be a juvenile then he and his co-accused Chinda would be tried together by the Additional Sessions Judge. Ludhiana. Petition allowed.