Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 12 (MP)

Ijaz Ahmed v. State of M. P.

2001-01-02

N.K.JAIN

body2001
The petitioner, who amongst others, has been put to trial on the charges under Ss. 147, 148 and 302/149 IPC, is aggrieved by the order dated 12.10.2000, passed by the Sessions Court below over ruling petitioner's objection that he being a juvenile offender below 16 years of age (on the date of incident) he ought to be dealt with under the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986. From the impugned order it appears that on objection being raised by the petitioner, the Sessions Court below instead of himself holding any enquiry into the question of age of the petitioner, directed the CJM Shajapur to make enquiry in the matter. The CJM in his report held that the petitioner accused was more than 16 years of age on the date of the commission of the offence. The learned Sessions Judge accepted the report of the CJM and over ruled the objection raised by the petitioner. Section 32 of the Juvenile Justice Act provides that where it appears to a competent authority that a person brought before it under any provisions of the Act, is a juvenile, the competent authority shall make due enquiry as to the age of that person and for that purpose shall take evidence as may be necessary and shall record a finding whether the person is a juvenile or not, stating his age as nearly as may be. Although, Section 32 contemplates enquiry by the competent authority as defined under section 2(d) of the Act. However, the Supreme Court in Bhola AIR 1998 SC 236 held : "This section casts an obligation on the Court to make due enquiry as to the age of the accused and if necessary by taking evidence itself and record a finding whether the person is a juvenile or not." (emphasis supplied) In the instant case the petitioner accused was never produced before Juvenile Court or any other authority under that Act. There was, thus, no occasion for any such authority to hold enquiry under section 32 of the Act. Under the circumstance it was for the Sessions Court itself to have held enquiry and record a finding whether the petitioner is a juvenile or not. Section 32 in its term, does not contemplate delegation of this power to any subordinate Court or authority. Under the circumstance it was for the Sessions Court itself to have held enquiry and record a finding whether the petitioner is a juvenile or not. Section 32 in its term, does not contemplate delegation of this power to any subordinate Court or authority. In my considered opinion, therefore, the Sessions Court below should have itself conducted the enquiry before recording a finding whether the petitioner is juvenile or not. The Court below clearly fell into error by ordering CJM to hold the enquiry and then acting upon wholly on the report of the CJM. In the result, I allow the revision and set aside order dated 12.10.2000 passed by Sessions Judge, Shajapur in S.T. No. 132/2000. The Sessions Court below is directed to itself hold enquiry and to record a finding whether the petitioner accused Ijaz Ahmed is juvenile or not. It is only after recording the said finding the Court below shall proceed with the trial of the case. A copy of this order be transmitted immediately to the Sessions Court Shajapur.