Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 106 (RAJ)

Roshan Lal v. State of Rajasthan

2005-01-12

H.R.PANWAR

body2005
Judgment H.R. Panwar, J.-By the instant criminal revision petition under Section 397/401, CrPC, the petitioner, who is a juvenile, has challenged the orders dated 17.09.2004 and 010.2004 passed by Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Court, Udaipur (for short the juvenile Court) directing the petitioner to appear before the Medical Board for determination of his age. 2. I have heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the orders impugned. 3. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that this Court by order dated 210.2003 passed in S.B. Cr. Revision Petition No. 529/2003 held that the petitioner is below 18 years of age and, therefore, he is a juvenile. The police after investigation filed the challan on 17.08.2004 against the petitioner for the offence under Section 8/21 of the NDPS Act, 1985 before the Special Judge, NDPS Act Cases, Court, Chittorgarh. After having examined as many as 14 witnesses on 23.01.2003, the petitioner filed an application before the Special Judge, NDPS Act Cases, Court, Chittorgarh for determination of his age and declaring him a juvenile on the ground that his date of birth is 27.09.1986, according to which the age of the petitioner comes to 15 years and 5 months. Parties led evidence before the Special Judge, NDPS Act Cases Court, Chittorgarh including the affidavit of parents of petitioner and certain documents were placed on record. 4. By the order dated 13.06.2003, the Special Judge, NDPS Act Cases, Court Chittorgarh rejected the application filed by the petitioner for declaring him a juvenile. That order came to be challenged before this Court in S.B. Cr. Revision Petition No. 529/2003. This Court by order dated 210.2003 set aside the order dated 13.06.2003 passed by the Special Judge, NDPS Act Cases, Chittorgarh and held that on proper appreciation of the evidence produced by the parties and the Medical Board, the petitioner is below 18 years and, therefore, he is juvenile. The order dated 210.2003 has not been challenged by the prosecution and it attained finality. From perusal of the order impugned dated 010.2004, it appears that the Juvenile Court has observed that in the present case, there is no earlier order determining the age of the petitioner and, therefore, directed the petitioner to appear before the Medical Board so as to determine his age. From perusal of the order impugned dated 010.2004, it appears that the Juvenile Court has observed that in the present case, there is no earlier order determining the age of the petitioner and, therefore, directed the petitioner to appear before the Medical Board so as to determine his age. The Juvenile Court has totally ignored the order of this Court dated 210.2003 by which the age of the petitioner has already been determined and he has been held to be below 18 years of age. In the circumstances, therefore, the order impugned cannot be sustained and deserves to be set aside. 5. Consequently, the revision petition is allowed. Orders impugned dated 17.09.2004 and 010.2004 are hereby set aside. The juvenile Court shall proceed in accordance with the order of this Court dated 210.2003. Petitioner shall produce certified copy of order dated 210.2003 passed in S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 529/2003 before the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Court, Udaipur.