Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 1244 (RAJ)

Uda @ Uda Ram Garasiya v. State of Rajasthan

2005-04-27

H.R.PANWAR

body2005
Judgment H.R. Panwar, J.-The instant criminal revision petition under Section 53 of Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (for short ‘the Act’ hereinafter) is directed against the Judgment and order dated 31.01.2005 passed by Sessions Judge, Udaipur (for short ‘the appellate Court’ hereinafter) on an appeal filed by the petitioner under Section 52 of the Act, by which, the appellate Court dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the Judgment and order of the appellate Court as well as the order passed by the Principle Magistrate, Juvenile Court, Udaipur dated 28.01.2005 on an application filed by the petitioner under Section 12 of the Act whereby the Principle Magistrate, Juvenile Court, Udaipur declined to release the petitioner juvenile on bail, the petitioner has filed the instant revision. 2. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and Public Prosecutor for the State. Perused the orders of the Courts below. 3. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that by order dated 012.2004 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Rajsamand, Camp Udaipur in Session Case No.38/2004, after due inquiry as contemplated under Section 49 of the Act, the learned Additional Sessions Judge held that the petitioner has not attained the age of 18 years on the date of commission of alleged crime and directed the petitioner juvenile to appear before the Juvenile Court, Udaipur on 012.2004. According to learned Counsel, since the age of the petitioner has already been determined after recording the evidence of Dr. G.L. Dad and Dr. Suresh Baser who were members of the medical board, and since the competent Court has already conducted the inquiry and came to the conclusion by order dated 012.2004 that the petitioner has not attained the age of 18 years on the relevant date of occurrence, therefore, the trial Court fell in error in holding again inquiry for determination of age. Suresh Baser who were members of the medical board, and since the competent Court has already conducted the inquiry and came to the conclusion by order dated 012.2004 that the petitioner has not attained the age of 18 years on the relevant date of occurrence, therefore, the trial Court fell in error in holding again inquiry for determination of age. From the perusal of the order dated 012.2004 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, (Fast Track), Rajsamand Camp Udaipur it appears that the case was committed to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge for trial and at that stage, the delinquent petitioner moved an application on 09.09.2004 stating therein that he has not attained the age of 18 years and, therefore, he is juvenile on the date of commission of crime and, therefore, an inquiry be held to determine his age and he be medically examined by a medical board. On that application, the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Rajsamand Camp Udaipur directed the petitioner to appear before the medical board. The petitioner appeared before the medical board and he was examined by the medical board on 211.2004. According to the opinion of the medical board, on the date of examination, the delinquent was between 17-18 years of age, but not more than 18 years and thus is juvenile as defined in Sub-section (k) of Section 2 of the Act. The order dated 012.2004 has attained finality as it was not challenged by the State. Thus, there appears to be no such requirement that again Principle Magistrate, Juvenile Court would hold the inquiry. Holding again inquiry is a futile exercise. Since, the competent Court has already determined the age of the delinquent juvenile and held him to be juvenile, further inquiry by the Principle Magistrate, Juvenile Court is unwarranted. In this view of the matter, the order passed by the Sessions Judge, Udaipur dated 31.01.2005 as well as by the Principle Magistrate, Juvenile Court, Udaipur dated 28.01.2005 cannot be sustained and are liable to be set aside. 4. Consequently, the revision petition is allowed. The order dated 31.01.2005 passed by Sessions Judge, Udaipur and order 28.01.2005 passed by Principle Magistrate, Juvenile Court, Udaipur are set aside. The matter is remanded to the Principle Magistrate, Juvenile Court, Udaipur to decide the bail application filed by the delinquent juvenile under Section 12 of the Act afresh in accordance with law.