- (1.) VINOD Prasad, J. Om Prakash, the revisionist, informant of Crime No. 60 of 2006, under Section 302, IPC, PS Chetganj District Varanasi has questioned the impugned order dated 13-10- 2006 passed by Principal Judge, Juvenile Justice Board, Ram Nagar, District Varanasi (herein after referred to as The Board) in Crime No. 60 of 2006 as well as the order dated 12-12-2006 passed by lower appellate Court, Session's Judge, District Varanasi in Criminal Appeal No. 113 of 2006, Om Prakash v. State of U. P. , by which lower appellate Court has rejected the appeal filed by the revisionists under Section 52 of Juvenile Justice Act, (hereinafter called as the Act) challenging the aforesaid order by the Board. By impugned order dated 13-10-2006 Board has rejected the prayer of the revisionist to revert back the case of accused respondent Amit Singh to Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi for conducting an inquiry as to whether the said accused is a juvenile or not? The said order has been confirmed in appeal by Session's Judge, Varanasi by passing the impugned order.
(2.) THE short narration of facts are that on 6-4-2006 at about 9 p. m. accused respondent Amit Singh alongwith co-accused Arvind took the deceased Ravi Kumar son of informant revisionist from the medical shop to a Lane in Andhrapul District Varanasi where deceased was firstly abused and then he was fired upon by Babu Lal alias Pappu and Arvind aforesaid. While injured was being rushed to the Heritage hospital he succumbed to him injuries. THE FIR of the murder was lodged by the informant revisionist on the same day at about 10. 50 p. m. at PS Chetganj District Varanasi. Investigation ensued pursuant to registration of aforesaid FIR and accused respondent Amit Singh was arrested in connection with the said murder. On 9-5-2006 respondent accused filed an application before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi that he is a juvenile as his date of birth is 16-11-1990. Calculating from the said date the accused was merely sixteen years of age at the time of the murder. In accordance with the procedure prescribed under Section 7 of the Act Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi transferred his case before the Board alongwith the relevant record on 10-5-2006. Board conducted an inquiry into the juvenility of the accused respondent and declared him to be a juvenile vide it's order dated 19-6-2006. Board has found the age of the accused to be 15 years 4 months and 20 days. This order by the Board was, however, set-aside by Additional Session's Judge, Court No. 4, Varanasi vide his order dated 27-7-2006 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 80 of 2006, Om Prakash v. State of U. P. and Anr. , preferred by the informant revisionist. The case was remanded back to the Board for a fresh decision by affording reasonable opportunity to both the sides. It was at this stage that the informant revisionist filed an application that in view of insertion and addition of Section 7-A in the Act, that the case be reverted back to CJM, Varanasi for conducting inquiry regarding the age of the accused. This application by the informant was rejected by the Board by passing the impugned order dated 13-10-2006. Challenge to the said order dated 13-10-2006 passed by the Board in Criminal Appeal No. 113 of 2006 also proved futile as Session's Judge, Varanasi also rejected the appeal filed by the revisionist vide his impugned order dated 12-12-2006. Hence this revision under Section 53 of the Act.
(3.) I have heard Sri D. S. Misra, learned Counsel for the revisionist in support of this revision and Sri R. S. Ram learned Counsel for the accused respondent and the learned AGA in opposition. Learned Counsel for the revisionist contended that the impugned orders passed by the Board as well as by Session's Judge, Varanasi are illegal order as they have misinterpreted Section 7-A of the Act. He contended that the only interpretation which can be given to Section 7-A of the Act is that the Court before whom the accused has been brought can only conduct an inquiry and only it can decide the age and juvenility of the accused and it cannot refer the case before the Board as was provided under Section 7 of the Act. He further contended that the lower appellate Court should have decide the age of the accused instead of remanding the matter back to the Board as he has got the said power under Section 6 (2) of the Act. He relied upon judgments of the Apex Court reported in 1984 SCC (Cri) 300 : AIR 1984 SC 718, A. R. Antulay v. Ram Sriniwas Nayak; and 1988 SCC (Cri) 372. He also cited 1995 A Crr 33, Naseem v. State, for the proposition that the lower appellate Court should not have remanded the case back and should have decided it himself.;