S.C.AGARWAL,J. - (1.) CASE taken up in the revised list. Sri K.D. Tiwari, advocate is present for the revisionist. Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 is not present. Counter affidavit on behalf of the State has been filed earlier. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record. This criminal revision is directed against the order dated 11.3.2010 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Court No.10, Allahabad in S.T. No.189 of 1987 (State Vs. Tribhuwan Yadav and others) whereby, application 74 kha filed by accused - revisionist Tribhuwan Yadav for declaring him to be a juvenile and to summon the relevant records from the college was rejected. The application 74 kha was filed on the ground that the date of birth of the revisionist was 11th January, 1970 according to transfer certificate and scholar register of R.P. Rastogi College, Gandhi Nagar, Malak Harhar, Allahabad and on the date of incident i.e. on 2nd November, 1985, the revisionist was aged about 15 years and was a juvenile.
(2.) WITHOUT calling the parties to lead evidence and without giving any opportunity to the revisionist and the State to lead evidence on the point of juvenility, learned Sessions Judge rejected the application 74 kha on the ground that earlier also on 28.2.2004, a similar application was moved by the revisionist and the revisionist was ordered to obtain dasti summons, but steps were not taken and the application was rejected. Learned trial court noted various deficiencies and disbelieved the copy of transfer certificate on the basis of a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Brij Mohan Singh Vs. Priya Brat Narain Sinha and others, A.I.R. 1965 Supreme Court 282 (V 52 C51) and opined that generally the parents, while admitting the child in the school, deliberately mention the age of the child to be less than the actual age with a view to take benefit in future in employment etc. Learned Sessions Judge also observed that the date of birth mentioned in the school register cannot be relied, as the same is not prepared by a public servant in due discharge of his duties. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that in view of Section 7A of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), the plea of juvenility may be raised before any court at any stage and the trial court is bound to hold inquiry, as envisaged under Section 7A of the Act. Section 7 A of the Act provides as under : "7A. Procedure to be followed when claim of juvenility is raised before any court.-- (1) Whenever a claim of juvenility is raised before any court or a court is of the opinion that an accused person was a juvenile on the date of commission of the offence, the court shall make an inquiry, take such evidence as may be necessary (but not an affidavit) so as to determine the age of such person, and shall record a finding whether the person is a juvenile or a child or not, stating his age as nearly as may be: Provided that a claim of juvenility may be raised before any court and it shall be recognised at any stage, even after final disposal of the case, and such claim shall be determined in terms of the provisions contained in this Act and the rules made thereunder, even if the juvenile has ceased to be so on or before the date of commencement of this Act. (2) If the court finds a person to be a juvenile on the date of commission of the offence under sub-section (1), it shall forward the juvenile to the Board for passing appropriate order, and the sentence if any, passed by a court shall be deemed to have no effect."
(3.) IT is clear from the above provision that whenever a claim of juvenility is raised before any Court, that Court is bound to hold an inquiry and take all such evidence, as may be necessary (but not on affidavit) so as to determine the age of such person and shall record a finding whether the person is juvenile or a child or not, stating his age as clearly as may be.;