- (1.) This criminal revision u/s 397/401 read with Section 53 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (here-in-after referred to as the 'Act') is directed against the order dated 16.11.2010 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Court No.6, Bulandshahr in Criminal Misc. Case No. 28 of 2007 whereby the application under Section 7-A of the Act moved on behalf of the revisionist-accused Sachin Gupta for declaring him to be a juvenile was rejected.
(2.) In brief, the facts are that the revisionist is an accused in Crime no. 378 of 2003, under Sections 364, 302, 201, 34 IPC, P.S. Khurja, District- Bulandshahr. During trial, an application under Section 7-A of the Act was moved on behalf of the revisionist claiming that his date of birth was 3.4.1986 and on the date of incident i.e. 5.9.2003, his age was 17 years, 5 months and 2 days and, therefore, he was a juvenile on the date of offence. The said application was filed on 17.11.2003 and a mark-sheet for 'Prathama' issued by Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad was filed to show the date of birth of the applicant. It was claimed that 'Prathama' examination is equivalent to matriculation. The complainant- Shankar Lal Verma, opposite party no. 2 filed objections against the revisionist stating therein that the revisionist was not a juvenile. It was also claimed that Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad has no recognition and any certificate or mark-sheet issued by it has no value.
(3.) Learned Sessions Judge, Bulandshahr referred the revisionist for medical examination by a Board and vide report dated 21.12.2003 given by C.M.O. Bulandshahr, the age of the revisionist was found to be about 20 years. Learned Sessions Judge, Bulandshahr, vide order dated 5.3.2004, declared the revisionist to be a juvenile. The said order dated 5.3.2004 was challenged by the complainant before this Court by means of Criminal Revision No. 1052 of 2004, which was allowed by this Court vide order dated 25.6.2007 and the order passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge was set aside on the ground that no proper enquiry into juvenility of the revisionist was held by learned Sessions Judges and even an affidavit of father of the revisionist was considered, which was impermissible and, therefore, learned Sessions Judge was directed to hold a fresh inquiry in accordance with law.;