Smt. Darkhsha and Another Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others — Allahabad HC (2020) — LawSathi Research

Smt. Darkhsha and Another Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others — Allahabad HC (2020) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the habeas corpus petition seeking production of the corpus (Ms. Darkhsha) and quashing of the order dated 16.10.2019 of the Child Welfare Committee/Judicial Magistrate, Firozabad (custody with the CWC till age 18) should be allowed. +1 more

Court's answer

No infirmity was found in the order dated 16.10.2019 handing over custody of the corpus to the Child Welfare Committee till she attains the age of 18 years.

Ratio / Principle

Date of birth of a juvenile, whether victim or accused, is to be ascertained under Section 94 of the JJ Act, 2015, and a voter ID card is not an enlisted document for that purpose.

Key takeaways

Under Section 94, JJ Act, 2015, age is determined first from the School/Matriculation or equivalent certificate; in its absence, from a certificate of a corporation, municipal authority or panchayat; and only in further absence, by ossification or other latest age-determination test conducted on the orders of the Committee/Board.ratio¶¶8

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 1138 of 2019 — Petitioners sought production of the corpus, Ms. Darkhsha, and quashing of the order dated 16.10.2019 of the Child Welfare Committee/Judicial Magistrate, Firozabad placing her custody with the Child Welfare Committee until she attained 18 years. Age dispute: the learned A.G.A. reported the corpus's date of birth as 02.07.2002; petitioner's counsel claimed 12.09.1999 per voter ID card; medical examination (page 33) reported the corpus to be around 17 years. Held: the date of birth of a juvenile, be it victim or accused, is to be ascertained under Section 94 of the JJ Act, 2015, in which a voter ID card is not an enlisted document; age is determined first from the School/Matriculation or equivalent certificate, then from a certificate of a corporation/municipal authority/panchayat, and only in absence of these, by ossification or other latest age-determination test on the orders of the Committee/Board. Finding no infirmity in the impugned order, the Bench of Pankaj Naqvi and Samit Gopal, JJ. dismissed the petition on 7.1.2020.

Court No. - 43

Case :- HABEAS CORPUS WRIT PETITION No. - 1138 of 2019 Petitioner :- Smt. Darkhsha And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Prem Babu Verma Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

Hon'ble Pankaj Naqvi,J. Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

Instructions furnished by the learned A.G.A are taken on record.

Heard Sri Prem Babu Verma, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Deepak Mishra, the learned A.G.A and Sri Lalit Kumar Mishra / Sri Sanjay Kumar appeared for opposite party No. 6.

This Habeas Corpus petition has been filed for seeking production of the corpus (Ms. Darkhsha) as also for quashing an order dated 16.10.2019 passed by Child Welfare Committee / Judidicial Magistrate, Firozabad whereby the custody of the corpus was handed over to the Child Welfare Committee till the corpus attains the age of 18 years.

Sri Deepak Mishra, the learned A.G.A on instructions states that the date of birth of the corpus (petitioner No. 1) is reported to be 02.07.2002 to which the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the voter ID card her date of birth is 12.09.1999.

It is well settled that date of birth of a juvenile be it victim or an accused is to be ascertained under Section 94 of the JJ Act, 2015 in which voter ID card is not an enlisted document. The said provision provides that the age is to be determined either on the basis of the date reflected from the School or the Matriculation or equivalent certificate, in absence thereof with certificate by a corporation or a municipal authority or a panchayat and only in absence thereof, recourse is to be had to the ossification test or any other latest age determination test conducted on the orders of Committee / Board. It is not disputed that as per medical examination of the corpus (page 33) she is reported to be around 17 years.

We in view of above do not find any infirmity in the order dated 16.10.2019.

The Habeas Corpus petition is dismissed.

Order Date :- 7.1.2020 AS Rathor