The High Court of Jharkhand dismissed a revision under Section 53 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000 against an order rejecting a prayer for age determination. The Court upheld the lower court's reliance on the petitioner's matriculation certificate showing a date of birth after the juvenile threshold.
The revision application is dismissed.
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 JHARKHAND, RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 855 of 2013
Prakash Mahato @ Prakash Kumar Mahto
.... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand .
.... Opposite Party.
CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.P. BHATT
For the Petitioner :- Mr. N.K Sahani & Gouri Devi, Advocates For the State :- Mr. Awani Kant Prasad, A.P.P
4 /04.08.2014 Present Revision Application has been preferred under section 53 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 against the order dated 05.08.2013 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Bokaro in S.T. No. 281 of 2012 whereby the prayer made by the petitioner for determination of age of the petitioner has been rejected.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the respondent/State. Perused the impugned order dated 5.8.2013 passed in S.T. No. 281 of 2012 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Bokaro. In view of the reasons stated by the learned court below while rejecting the prayer it appears that the learned court below after careful consideration of the fact involved in the matter and considering the relevant and vital document i.e the matriculation certificate wherein the date of birth of the petitioner is indicated as 25.11.1984. The court below rejected the petition filed on behalf of the accused for determination of his age. The order passed by the learned court below is in consonance with the provisions of the Act and the said order appears to be legal and proper and, therefore, intervention by this court is not required.
Hence, this Revision Application filed by the petitioner stands dismissed.
Anjali/Nibha
3 issues framed by the court
Whether to allow a revision against the rejection of a prayer for determination of age under the Juvenile Justice Act.
Whether the learned Additional Sessions Judge was correct in relying on the matriculation certificate to determine age.
Whether the order rejecting the prayer for determination of age is legal and proper.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Prakash Mahato @ Prakash Kumar Mahto
The State of Jharkhand
P.P. Bhatt
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
