Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 736 (RAJ)

Padam Chand Bundela v. State of Rajasthan

2018-03-12

DEEPAK MAHESHWARI

body2018
JUDGMENT : DEEPAK MAHESHWARI, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the accused-petitioners as also learned Public Prosecutor. 2. This criminal revision has been preferred to assail the order dated 02.02.2018, whereby learned Judicial Magistrate Kama, District Bharatpur has rejected the application filed under Section 7 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 ('Act of 2015') and the matter has been fixed for charge arguments. 3. Learned counsel has drawn attention of this Court towards provisions of Section 7-A whereby the procedure has been prescribed when claim of juvenility is raised before any Court. He has also drawn attention of this Court to the procedure to be followed in determining age as prescribed under Rule 12 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules 2007 ('Rules of 2007'). 4. Learned counsel has also placed reliance on the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anil Agarwal v. State of West Bengal, reported in 2012(9) SCC 768 . 5. On perusal of the order impugned dated 02.02.2018 it appears that learned Court has not followed the above stated provisions of the Act of 2015 and Rule of 2007 made under the Act. On bare perusal of the mark-sheet issued by the Secondary Board of Education, the Court has drawn the conclusion that the accused-petitioners were not juvenile at the time of the commission of offence and has rejected the application filed on behalf of the accused-petitioners. 6. In view of judgment of Anil Agarwal (supra), this Court is of the considered view that the trial court should have considered the question of Juvenility as raised by the accused-petitioners and thereafter should have proceeded to try the accused itself or to send the case to the concerned Juvenile Justice Board in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 2000. The conclusion about the juvenility should have been drawn after adopting the procedure as prescribed under Section 7-A of the Act of 2015 and the Rules 12 of the Rules of 2007. Disposal of the application moved by the accused-petitioners summarily and without adopting the procedure prescribed was not warranted. 7. In view of above, the order impugned dated 02.02.2018 is quashed and set aside and direction is issued to the concerned Court to conduct the enquiry regarding juvenility of the accused-petitioners in accordance with the provisions of law stated above. The revision petition is accordingly allowed.