High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Ajay @ Monu v. State Of U.P. - CRIMINAL REVISION No. 2424 of 2005  RD-AH 9853 (19 May 2006)
Criminal Revision No. 2424 of 2005
Ajai alias Monu Vs. State of U.P.
Hon'ble V.D.Chaturvedi J.
This criminal revision is filed against the order dated20.4.2005 passed by Sri R.S. Chaubey Sessions Judge, Etawah ,whereby the learned Sessions Judge rejected the revisionist's application for declaring him as juvenile. The revisionist was involved in case Crime no. 6 of 2005 P.S. Lavedi, district Etawah u/s 302/34 IPC. During the pendency of his bail application before the Sessions Judge , the revisionist moved an application on which the impugned order was passed.
I have heard Sri R.K. Porwar and Sri R.O.V.S. Chauhan for the revisionist and Sri Manish Tiwari, Sri A.K. Awasthi and learned A.G.A. for the respondents.
The learned counsel for the revisionist drew my attention towards sub rule(5) of Rule 22 of the "Model Rules" framed under the Juvenile Justice ( Care and Protection of Children) Act 2000, herein after called as 'the Rules'. Drawing my attention towards sub rule (5) of Rule 22 of the Rules, he argued that the age opined by the medical Board cannot be taken into account if the birth certificate issued by the Corporation or the Municipal Authority or the date of birth certificate from the school first attended or the matriculation or equivalent certificate are available. He argued that in the court of Sessions Judge, the revisionist had filed a copy of the scholar register and transfer certificate form showing his date of birth as 5.7.89; that despite the availability of the said educational certificate regarding date of birth of the revisionist the learned Sessions Judge adopted an erroneous view on the basis of medical opinion regarding the age of the revisionist. He added to his argument that even in the medical certificate the age of revisionist was opined as 19 years; that the learned Sessions Judge further erred in not giving the grace of two years in lower side while considering the medical opinion regarding the age. He argued that neither medical opinion nor the voters list deserved to be considered when the educational certificate regarding the age of revisionist were already on record.
Sub-rule (5) of Rule 22 of the Rules runs as thus:
"(5) In every case concerning a juvenile or a child, the Board shall either obtain:-
"(i) a birth certificate given by a corporation or a municipal authority; or
(ii) a date of birth certificate from the school first attended; or
(iii)matriculation or equivalent certificates, if available; and
(iv) in the absence or (i) to (iii) above, the medical opinion by a duly constituted Medical Board, subject to a margin of one year, in deserving cases for the reasons to be recorded by such Medical Board,
regarding his age, and, when passing orders in such case shall, after taking into consideration such evidence as maybe available or the medical opinion, as the case maybe record a finding in respect of his age."
The copy of the scholars register and transfer certificate form, filed by the revisionist, in the court of learned Sessions Judge, was not of a "school first attended" as laid down in Clause (ii) of sub rule (5) of Rule 22 of the Rules. The said copy shows that the revisionist was admitted in the said school on 1.8.2001 in class IX and he passed class ix in the year 2001-02. He was admitted in the said school in Class Xth but failed. He left the school on 27.7.2004 without passing Class X. Thus it is clear that the copy of the school certificate filed by the revisionist was not issued by a "school first attended by him".
It is not disputed before me that the birth certificate issued by any corporation or any Municipal Authority ( as envisaged in clause (i) of sub Rule (5) of Rule 22 of the Rules) was not filed in the court of the Sessions Judge .It is further not disputed that the matriculation or the equivalent certificate was also not filed in the Court of the Sessions Judge. Thus no document laid down in clause (i to iii) of sub rule (5) of Rule 22 of the Rules appears to have been filed before the Sessions Judge. In the absence of the documents enumerated in Clause (i) (ii) and (iii) there was no bar the learned Sessions Judge to base his opinion on the report of the Medical Board. The learned Sessions Judge, therefore, committed no error in relying upon the age of the revisionist opined by the Medical Board. Thus the learned Sessions Judge committed no illegality in passing the impugned order dated 20.4.2005.
The learned counsel for the revisionist drew my attention towards the another copy of the school leaving certificate issued by "Man Gayatri Public School, Bharthan, filed by him in this Court on 5.03.2006 and requested to take this copy of the transfer certificate into consideration.
The powers to conduct inquiry regarding the age is entrusted to Juvenile Justice Court. The revisionist should have filed this copy before the Sessions Judge or before the Juvenile Justice Board if the Board has been constituted for the district Etawah.
The learned counsel for the revisionist requested that the Juvenile Justice Board be directed to consider the school leaving certificate issued by the Maa Gayatri Public School Bhartana, district Etawah and to pass a fresh order on the basis of the said school leaving certificate.
While deciding such petition for declaring an accused as juvenile, the Board must keep in mind that on one hand a person really below 18 years of age should not be refused of his right given under the Juvenile Justice( Care and Protection of Children) Act 2001. On the other hand, the Board should be equally careful to see that an accused who has attended the age of 18 years must not get benefit of a juvenile on the basis of fake or forged document. Therefore, the Board must ensure that the school certificate regrading his age is not a fake certificate or is not a certificate based on fictitious entries managed by the accused by his influence. For this purpose it is necessary to summon and peruse with great caution and care all the relevant registers of the school showing his admission and attendance in the said school in the relevant years. If such admission registers and the attendance registers corroborate that the accused has been the student of the relevant school in the relevant year, the Board must not hesitate in declaring the accused as juvenile.
But if on the other hand there are circumstances which creates doubt regarding the genuineness of the entries made in the admission register of the first attended school or creates doubt regarding the entries made in the attendance registers of such school, the certificate of first attended school should not be relied upon. Thus in nutshell the duty of the Board is to ensure that the bonafide person should not be deprived of his right given under the Juvenile Justice Act and a malafide person should not get the advantage of the said Act.
The revisionist may file the copy of the school certificate before the Juvenile Justice Board or the Sessions Judge as the case may be.
There is no infirmity in the impugned order hence the revision fails and is hereby dismissed. However, the Board may entertain the application moved on the basis of the school certificate issued by the said Maa Gayatri Public School.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.