- (1.) S. N. Saxena, J. This application was moved by applicant Iftekhar Ahmad Siddiqui alias Babloo under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974 ). On the request of the learned counsel for the applicant, it was converted into a petition under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure because a revision application was maintainable vide order dated 17-5-1995 passed on the back of the petition and it was, thereafter, transferred to this Bench.
(2.) REVISIONIST applicant by means of this revision application has prayed that the impugned order, dated 31st March, 1995 passed by the learned Vth Additional District and Sessions Judge, Jaunpur be set aside. The facts which gave rise to this revision application were as follows: The revisionist applicant alongwith a few other co-accused persons were tried under Sections 324, 307, 302, 504 and 506, I. P. C. , before the said Court in Sessions Trial No. 343 of 1992-State v. Abrar and others. A prayer was made by the revisionist applicant that he was a juvenile on the date of the occurrence and, therefore, his trial be separated and got trans ferred to the juvenile court in accordance with the relevant provisions of Juvenile Justice Act (53 of 1986 ). During arguments, however, it came out that the aforesaid request was made almost after the conclusion of the trial. No objection at the time of the commencement of the trial or during the commitment proceedings was raised by the revisionist applicant for his separate trial. The learned lower court did not allow the request of the applicant and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, fixed the date for arguments in the trial. The revisionist applicant, however, there after preferred the present application. Shri S. K. Dube, learned counsel for the opposite patty (infor mant) put appearance and wanted permission to make his submissions at the stage of the admission of this revision application. The request was allowed and he also was heard on the question of admission.
(3.) THE incident giving rise to the aforesaid Sessions Trial had taken place on 9-5-1992. THE revisionist had moved application for his separate trial by a juvenile court on 22-2-1995 vide Annexure No. 2 of the revision application, which was, as mentioned above, decided by the impugned order cated 31st March, 1995 vide Annexure No. 3 to the revision application. A copy of the mark-sheet of the revisionist applicant of his High School Examination of the year 1991 was filed according to which his date of birth was 18-6-1976. He had completed 16 years of age with the expiry of 17-6-1992 while the incident had taken place on 9-5-1992. He, thus, if the date of birth had been correctly shown, was below 16 years of age on the birth of the incident. Learned counsel for the opposite party (informant), however, contended that the crucial date for getting the benefit of separate trial in accordance with the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act (53 of 1986) was the date of enquiry or trial and not the date of the offence and relied upon a decision of Andhra Pradesh High Court reported in 1992 Crl LJ at page 334- Vunnam Lakshminarayana v. State Inspector of Police, Narasarappet. For the revisionist applicant, however, reliance was placed upon a few decisions whereby provisions of U. P. Children Act were inter preted and it was held that for the purpose of awarding punishment, the relevant date was the date of the offence. At this stage, however, the question of punishment is not under consideration before the learned lower couit and the revisionist applicant, this, has got the right to make his submissions before the trial court on the question of sentence, if he is convicted for the above- mentioned offences. His trial alongwith the other co-accused persons had not taken away his right to put forward his submis sions only on the question of sentence before the learned VIth Additional District and Sessions Judge, Jaunpur. The only decision which was produced before this Court about separate trial of a juvenile was the aforesaid decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court and after going through the same, I find that the crucial date for getting the said benefit was the date of enquiry or trial and not the date of the offence. The objection for the first time was raised by the revisionist applicant on 22-2-1995, which had been described by him as a preliminary objection. The Sessions trial was numbered as 343 of 1992 which meant that it must have been committed to Court of Session some time prior to its registration as Sessions Trial No. 343 of 1992. There is nothing to show that during the commitment proceeding, the revisionist applicant had raised an objection claiming separate trial on the basis of his being a juvenile. He to the contrary permitted the trial to proceed and participated in the same till almost its conclusion as was evident from the impugned order dated 31-3-1995 by which the Sessions Trial was fixed for arguments on merits on 7-4-1995. His age on 22-2-1995 when he had for the first time claimed separate trial was 18 years and about 8 months. He had completed 16 years of age as early as on 17-6-1992. He, thus, on the date of the trial was not a juvenile and the preliminary objection was raised by him at a very late stage, after attaining majority. His prayer, therefore, was rightly refused by the learned lower court, as the crucial date for determination of the question of his age as to whether he was a child under 16 years of age was the date of enquiry or trial and not the date of the offence. The revision application, therefore, was liable to be dismissed summarily at the stage of admission.;