- (1.) By means of this revision, the revisionist has challenged the legality of the judgment and order dated 11.8.2003 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 5, Deoria in S.T. No. 132 of 2000, State v. Vijendra, whereby the learned Additional Session Judge, has refused to separate the file of revisionist on the basis of his plea of juvenility. Heard Sri Mohan Tiwari, learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of the State and perused the record. Some background facts in brief are that an application alongwith an affidavit was filed by the revisionist before the learned Additional Session Judge, Deoria praying to separate his file from the rest of the accused. The applicant/revisionist prayed that he being a juvenile on the date of occurrence, his file be sent to Juvenile Justice Board for disposal. In the affidavit annexed with the application, it was stated that the date of birth of the revisionist, as mentioned in the High School Certificate being 20.10.1982, he was below 18 years of age on the date of occurrence, alleged to have taken place on 18.2.2000 so he was a juvenile on the day of occurrence. In support of his pleadings the applicant/revisionist filed his High School Certificate in original. However, learned Additional Session Judge rejected his application by the order impugned on the following grounds: 1. The applicant had surrendered in the Court on 25.3.2000 but he did not take the plea of juvenility on that date. 2. The date of occurrence is 18.2.2000 and on such date the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 was not in force. As this Act has come into force on 1.4.2001, in this case the provision of old Act of 1986 would apply. 3. In the old Act, in order to declare a person a juvenile, his age should have been less than 16 years whereas the applicant (revisionist) was of 17 years three month and 28 days on the date of occurrence. Therefore he cannot be held to be a Juvenile.
(2.) Learned Additional Sessions Judge has relied on a case law in Arninkdas v. State of Bihar,2000 SCC 482and has held that the relevant date for determining the age of an accused who is taking plea of juvenile, would be the date when he, for the first time appears before the Court and not the date of offence. One more ground on which the application of the revisionist has been rejected by lower Court is that the applicant/revisionist has not raised the plea of juvenility on the date when he had surrendered before the Court.
(3.) Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the revisionist has come before this Court and has questioned its legality on the following grounds: (1) That the learned lower Court has not considered the fact that the revisionist was a minor on the date of occurrence and has ignored the certificate of High School filed by him. (2) The view taken by the Court below regarding the relevant date for declaring a person a juvenile, is against the legal position but the Court below without application of his judicial mind and without keeping in view the legal provisions, has passed the impugned order which is liable to be set aside.;