- (1.) KHEM Karan, J. Heard Sri A. K. Pandey, the learned Counsel for the revisionist and the learned Counsel for the Union of India.
(2.) THIS revision under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Section 53 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 2000), is directed against order dated 25-9-2001, of Special Judge, Barabanki (Under N. D. P. S. Act, 1985) by which he turned down the plea of the revisionist that he was a "juvenile" within the meaning of the Act of 2000. The revisionist was arrested on 3-7-2001, for committing alleged offences, punishable under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (N. D. P. S. Act ). He, moved a bail application, taking the plea that he was a "juvenile" as his date of birth was 27-8-1986. The Union of India took the plea that he was above 18, on the date of crime. Keeping the bail application pending, this question was examined separately. In support of his plea the revisionist filed extract from school leaving register, in which his date of birth was entered as 27-8-1986. His mother also filed affidavit to the same effect. The Union of India, relied on the medical report of Chief Medical Officer, to which his age was given as 19, extract from parivar register, in which the year of his birth was shown as 1980. The Court also summoned the accused from Jail and saw him from this angle. The learned Special Judge says on page 5 of the impugned order, that by appearance he appeared to be 18. Both the sides advanced arguments, tried to support their respective submissions, by referring to certain judicial pronouncements, and the learned Special Judge, took the view that entry about age, made in pariwar register, supported by the report of C. M. O. and the general appearance, outweighed the entry made in the school leaving certificate. He, therefore, concluded that the revisionist was above 18 of age, on the date of crime.
(3.) THE provisions contained in the Act of 2000, are in the shape of beneficial legislation and ought to be kept in mind, while examining, the question as to whether a particular person is entitled to the protection thereof. It would be useful to recall the recent observations of the apex Court, made in Rajinder Chandra v. State of Chhattishgarh and another, (2002)2 SCC 287. "it is true that the age of the accused is just on the border of sixteen years and on the date of the offence and his arrest he was less than 16 years by a few months only. In Amit Das v. State of Bihar, 2000 (41) ACC 191 (SC ). This Court has, on a review of judicial opinion, held that while dealing with question of determination of the age of the accused for the purpose of finding out whether he is a juvenile or not, a hyper-technical approach should not be adopted while appreciating the evidence adduced on behalf of the accused in support of the plea that he was juvenile and if two views may be possible on the said evidence,the Court should lean in favour of holding the accused to be a juvenile in borderline case. The law, so laid down by this Court, squarely applies to the facts of the present case. ";