- (1.) KUNDAN Singh, J. This revision has been directed against the order dated 27-4-1993, passed by the special Judge, Dacoity Affected Area, Etah, whereby he has recorded a finding that the applicant is not a juvenile.
(2.) THE special Judge has mentioned that 14 opportunities were afforded to the accused-applicant to lend evidence in support of his plea that he is a juvenile but except photocopy of school certificate he did not file any other evidence and in that school certificate his date of birth is recorded as 11-5-1977. THE learned special Judge has also taken notice of the Kutunb register filed by the complainant in which the date of birth of Lallu Ram is recorded as 7-6-72 and held that this entry relates t Sanjiv Kumar, the applicant, as in the FIR. In case crime No 147 of 1991 Lallu Ram is shown as Sanjiv Kumar and on that basis ha concluded that the applicant was a young man of more than 20 years, hence his trial could not be separated from those of other co-accused on the ground that he is a juvenile. It is against that order that the applicant has now come up to this court in the above revision. Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as the learned Stand ing Counsel for the State. The learned counsel for the applicant at the out set argued that the finding of the learned special Judge that the case was adjourned on 14 dales only to enable the applicant to file evidence in support of his plea that he is a juvenile but no evidence was adduce despite sufficient opportunity is wrong. His contention was that the case was adjourned on other grounds and not for affording opportunity to the applicant to lead evidence in proof of his age. Whatever be the truth in this submission of the learned counsel, this court is not in a position to judge its veracity because the entire order sheet of the case is not before the court to form an opinion whether all the time the case was adjourned to lead evidence by the applicant about his age.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the applicant next argued that the copy of Kutumb Register filed by the complainant in which date of birth of one Lallu Ram was recorded as 7-9-1972 did not repots to the applicant and the learned special Judge has on its basis wrongly inferred that the applicant was a young man of 20 years has connected the Kutumb Register with the entry in the F. I. R. in case crime No. 147 of 1991 under Sections 30?, 5c4 and 506 I. P. C. in which Lallu Ram is shown as Sanjiv Kumar alias Chhabi Ram. Since I am directing afresh inquiry into the question whether the applicant is or is not a juvenile, I refrain myself from expressing any opinion on this disputed question of fact because any filing by the court on the point in issue may prejudice the inquiry before the court below. So far as the school certificate is concerned, the applicant has filed a photo state copy thereof, which has been rejected b> the learned Sessions Judge on the ground that since the original certificate has not been filed before the court in support of his contention, an unproved photocopy cannot be taken into consideration. Here in the present revision the applicant has filed a photo state copy of the certified copy, issued by the civil court, Etah. That means that original certificate was tendered by the applicant before the court below. Had full opportunity been afforded to the applicant, he would have explained about the loss or existence of the original certificate. Since the question of juvenility has been seriously by raised in this case, which ulti mately will speak on the jurisdiction of the Session Court also, therefore, the ends of justice require that full opportunity be afforded to the parties to lead evidence on this question.;