S.C.Agarwal, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri S.K. Chaubey, learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the impugned order.
(2.) NO notice is issued to private opposite party in view of the order proposed to be passed today, however, liberty is reserved for private opposite party to apply for variation or modification of this order if he feels so aggrieved. This revision is directed against the order dated 19.10.2010 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 6, Shahjahanpur in ST. No. 962 of 1997, State v. Jagat Pal, arising out of crime No. 105 of 1990 under Section 307 IPC, P.S. Tilhar, whereby the application 157-Ka dated 28.9.2010 and application 158- Ka dated 4.10.2010, moved by accused Jagat Pal (revisionist) for declaring himself to be a juvenile, have been rejected. Revisionist Jagat Pal is the sole accused in the aforesaid sessions trial. On 4.10.2010, an application under Section 6 (2) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') was filed by the revisionist before learned Additional Sessions Judge to declare him to be a juvenile in conflict with law on the ground that he passed Junior High School Examination, 1988 from Junior High School, Sindhauli, Shahjahanpur and the date of birth of the revisionist in the school records is 26th June, 1976. The incident took place in the year 1980 and, therefore, on the date of incident, the revisionist was a juvenile.
(3.) LEARNED Additional Sessions Judge rejected the aforesaid applications on the ground that the result sheet, progress report and school leaving certificates show the date of birth of the accused - revisionist to be 26th June, 1976, but all these three documents are photo stat copies, which are not admissible in evidence and consequently the applications were rejected. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that learned Additional Sessions Judge committed illegality in rejecting the applications on the ground that the documents filed before it were photo stat copies. It was further submitted that when an application was moved by the accused- revisionist for declaring him to be a juvenile, learned Additional Sessions Judge was bound to hold an inquiry under Section 7A of the Act and should have given an opportunity to the revisionist to lead evidence in support of his applications. It was, however, conceded by learned counsel for the revisionist that the provisions of law have been wrongly mentioned in the applications. The applications ought to have been moved under Section 7A of the Act and the reference of Section 6 (2) of the Act was wrongly made.;