- (1.) VINOD Prasad, J. Danish the re visionist has questioned the correctness of the order dated 14. 11. 2006, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Bareilly, in Criminal Appeal No. 122 of 2006, filed by the State, by which appellant State had challenged the correctness of the order dated 21. 9. 2006, passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Bareilly. The appeal of the State has been allowed in part by the im pugned order, in respect of summoning of documents from Gleen Children School, hence this revision by the accused.
(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that on 5. 8. 2006, at about 1. 30 p. m. , Geeta Agrawal and Reetu Agrawal, the maternal aunts of the informant Piyush Kumar Agrawal were assaulted by three assailants by sharp edged weapons in their house, situated at 146, Civil Lines district Bareilly in front of ICICI Bank. FIR, annexure No. 1, in respect of the incident was scribed by the infor mant Piyush Kumar, who lodged it at P. S. Kotwali, district Bareilly, as Crime No. 2738/06 for offences under sections 452, 302, 323, 394 and 411 IPC. Follow up investigation surfaced the complicity of the revisionist in the aforesaid crime. On 26. 8. 2006 the applicant claimed juvenility before the CJM, Bareilly, mentioning his date of birth as 3. 7. 1990. The application of the revisionist applicant was contested both by the informant and the State. The CJM, Bareilly, vide his order dated 26. 8. 2006, submitted the case of the revisionist before the Juvenile Justice Board, Bareilly for determination of his age. Mohd. Hasan father of the revisionist was examined by the Juvenile Justice Board, who, according to the case of the revisionist, stated the date of birth of the revisionist to be 3. 7. 1990. Documentary evidences filed in support of the proof of age included High School Certificate and transfer certificate wherein the same date of birth of the revisionist were recorded. The Juvenile Justice Board also examined Subodh Kumar Saxena, Manager and Sunil Kumar Sharma Clerk of Reena Model High School, Bareilly, as C. W. 1 and C. W. 2. They also proved the recorded age of the revisionist as 3. 7. 1990 in the school docu ments. On 14. 9. 2006 prosecution filed an application for getting the revisionist medi cally examined. Pending disposal of the aforesaid application, prosecution filed another application on 21. 9. 2006 with the prayer that documents from the Gleen Children School regarding admission of the revisionist be also summoned before the age of the revisionist is determined.
(3.) JUVENILE Justice Board on 21. 9. 2006 rejected both the aforesaid applications filed by the prosecution for medical examination as well as summoning of the record of the Gleen Children School. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the JUVENILE Justice Board, State preferred criminal Appeal No. 122/06, State v. Danish and others, which appeal was partly al lowed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Bareilly vide impugned order dated 14. 11. 2006. The lower Appellate Court re jected the prayer for medical examination as was prayed for by the State but allowed its prayer for summoning of the document of Gleen Children School, which applica tion was filed by the State on 21. 9. 2006. Hence, this revision challenging the order passed by the lower Appellate Court by the accused. I have heard Sri D. S. Misra, learned Counsel for the revisionist, Dr. Arun Srivastava learned Counsel for the respondent and the learned AGA in op position. Judgement was reserved in this revi sion on 13. 12. 2006. Subsequent there to on 28. 3. 2007 Sri D. S. Misra also filed written submissions, which was taken on record.;