C.A.Rahim - (1.) THIS revision has been preferred against the orders dated 29.4.1997 and 9.5.1997 passed by the Ilnd Additional Sessions Judge, Basti, in S. T. No. 111 of 94.
(2.) SRI A. K. Upadhya, appearing for the revisionist has submitted that under the provisions of Juvenile Justice Act, a juvenile cannot be tried by a Court of Session. An application for determination of the age of the accused-revisionist was filed before the trial Judge contending that age of the revisionist was below 16 years on the date of the occurrence. He has referred the impugned order and submitted that the process of determination of the age as done by the trial Judge was not proper and against the principle laid down in the case of Jaya Mala v. Home Secretary, Government of Jammu and Kashmir and others. AIR 1982 SC 1297. At page 9 of the said decision, it has been held : "It is notorious and one can take judicial notice that the margin of error in age ascertained by radiological examination is two years on either side". Referring the said decision, the learned counsel has submitted that determination of age on the date of examination of the Chief Medical Officer was 18 years. So in view of the principles laid down in Jaya Mala's case (supra), it should be below 16 years on the date of the occurrence. In this case at internal page 4 of the Zerox copy of the judgment, the learned Judge has discussed the evidence that was tendered by both the sides. It is stated that report of the C.M.O. was based not only on X-ray examination but also on external examination of the accused. The said C.M.O. in his examination as D.W. 1 has stated that he found 14 upper teeth and 15 lower teeth of the accused on examination. In cross-examination, he has stated that the 15th teeth appears after completion of 18 years. According to him, age of the accused was not less than 171/2 to 181/2- years on the date of his examination. He was examined on 2.3.1995 whereas the date of the occurrence was 30.3.1994. So according to him, his age was 161/2 to 171/2 years on the date of occurrence. The decision referred by the learned counsel is not applicabble in this case. In that case, the said principle was laid down where the age was ascertained only by radiological examination. In the instant case, when the said examination is confirmed by the clinical examination by the C.M.O., I do not consider that the definite finding with regard to age can be assailed by the revisionist. Accordingly, I find that the decision of the learned Judge on the point of age of the revisionist was proper and it cannot be interfered in revision.
(3.) THE revision is, therefore, dismissed.;