The Court condoned delay in filing a revision petition concerning an age dispute affecting the accused's status as a juvenile. The impugned order referring the accused to the juvenile board was set aside.
Impugned order dated 15.9.2005 stayed. Additional Sessions Judge directed to record age evidence before deciding referral.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.61 OF 2006
-------------------------------------------------------
Office Notes, Office
Memoranda of Coram, Court’s or Judge’s orders
appearances, Court’s orders
or directions and
Registrar’s orders
-------------------------------------------------------
Mr.Samir Sawant i/by P.V.Gond for
the applicant.
Ms.Rubeena Gonsalves for
Respondent no.1.
Mr.S.S.Pednekar APP for the State.
Coram : R.S.Mohite,J
Date : 7.4.2006.
PC
1. Heard both sides. This is
an application for condonation
of delay of 97 days in filing
the revision. On perusal of the
application, it is seen that the
applicant had to visit the
native place of the accused in
Bihar and applied for certified
copy of the electoral list which
indicates the age of the
accused. He obtained the same
on 31.1.2006 and thereafter,
filed this application on
23.3.2006. In my view in the
interest of justice, delay has
to be condoned. Hence, delay is
: 2 :
condoned. Application stands
disposed of.
(R.S.Mohite,J)
REVISION APPLICATION 151/2006
1. This revision challenges the
order dated 15.9.2005 referring
the matter of the present
respondent to the juvenile board
for the trial. There is a
dispute regarding the age of the
accused. Ossification test so
also electoral roll indicates
that he is not a juvenile. As
regards 2 school leaving
certificates, they indicate
different dates of birth.
Advocate for the respondent had
sought to explain the same by
stating that, that was a
bonafide mistake because the
dates were taken by successive
entries of 2 students. It
appears that the Court has
passed the impugned order on the
basis of un-proved documents.
: 3 :
2. In the circumstances, rule.
Interim stay of the impugned
order dated 15.9.2005.
Additional Sessions Judge to
proceed with the trial and to
first record the evidence which
may be produced by the
prosecution relating to the age
of the accused in order to
determine whether he is a
juvenile. All parties to have a
right to cross-examine the
witnesses relating to the age.
After such evidence is
completed, the respondent will
be at liberty to file a fresh
application for referring the
matter to the juvenile justice
board and such an application
will be decided by the Sessions
Court on the basis of oral and
documentary evidence led.
Papers be sent back by the
juvenile justice board on urgent
basis. APP states that if the
documents relating to age
produced by the Complainant and
the accused are handed over to
the investigation officer for
: 4 :
verification, after making
verification evidence relating
to the same will also led by the
prosecution relating to these
documents.
(R.S.Mohite,J)
3 issues framed by the court
Whether delay in filing the revision should be condoned for obtaining age-related documents.
Whether the order referring the accused to the juvenile board can be revoked upon showing age dispute.
Whether the Sessions Court must record evidence on age before deciding the referral to juvenile board.
Surendra Suresh Bhate
State of Maharashtra
R.S.Mohite
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court