D.K.SINHA, J. - (1.) THE petitioner has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure for quashment of the order dated 1.12.2010 passed by the C.J.M.. Koderma in Koderma (Telaiya) P.S. Case No. 127 of 2010, corresponding to G.R. No. 206 of 2010 by which he refused to pass any order on the petition of the petitioner dated 18.11.2010 stating the reason that by his earlier order dated 10.8.2010 he had already refused the claim of the petitioner to declare him juvenile. The Sessions Judge, Koderma also while entertaining the Criminal Appeal preferred under Section 52 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 held that the order dated 10.8.2010 passed by the C.J.M., Koderma could not be held to be an order recorded by a competent authority in terms of Section 2(g) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. The petitioner requested that his case may be referred to the Juvenile Justice Board, Koderma for determination of his age and declaring him juvenile. The informant Anil Kumar in his written report dated 29.3.2010 presented before Tilaiya Police stated that he used to reside in his father -in -law's house at Kalali Road, Tilaiya having his grocery shop near the G.T. Complex. He had been in his shop at about 10.00 a.m. on 28.3.2010. As he had to go out for an extreme urgent work for that he had taken his brother -in -law Tarun Kumar to the shop. At about 11 O'clock, the renter of his father -in -law's house took away certain articles from his grocery shop accompanying his brother -in -law, Tarun on assurance that he would return the articles to his shop if not liked through Tarun by retaining the other articles. Tarun accompanied the renter. As the informant had to go out for his work, he left the place by closing his shop and making over the keys of the shop to the neighbourting shop keeper with the instruction to make over the keys to Tarun on his return. When the informant returned back at about 7 p.m., he found his shop closed. He then went to his home where he could gather that Tarun had proceeded at about 3.45 p.m. saying that he was going to his friend Jitendra but he did never return back. On 29.3.2010 in the morning he received a call on his cell phone informing by unknown that his son was in his custody and extended threat that his son would be killed if the ransom would not be given to him. This message was given on the cell phone of Tarun Kumar and he had reason to believe that his brother -in -law Tarun was kidnapped by unknown culprit for ransom.
(2.) DURING course of investigation Jitendra Kumar was apprehended, who confessed his guilt stating that he had killed Tarun Kumar after gaging his mouth and had thrown his dead body in the well for the reason that Tarun Kumar had been teasing his sister since long. He also confessed the complicity of the petitioner Anand Kumar Verma that he had taken advice from the petitioner as to whether Tarun Kumar should be killed or not and the petitioner advised him to eliminate Tarun. After investigation, charge -sheet was submitted under Sections 302/201 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner -Anand Kumar Verma and other four accused namely Jitendra Kumar, Nishant Raizy Tigga, Vishal Choudhary, Anand Kumar Verma and Sanjay Kumar Das, accordingly, cognizance of the offence was taken against them. Learned Counsel Mr. Deepak Kumar submitted that an application was filed on behalf of the petitioner' on 22.4.2010 before the C.J.M., Koderma for declaring him juvenile on the fact that the date of birth of the petitioner was 5.8.1993 and in support thereof he 'had filed his School Leaving Certificate in proof of his age. It was stated that on the alleged date of occurrence his age was 16 years 7 months 24 days. The parents of the petitioner were also examined before the C.J.M., Koderma where the father of the petitioner had specifically deposed corroborating the date of birth of his son being on 5.8.1993 and this fact was supported in the evidence of the mother of the petitioner, who clearly stated that the age of her son was 16 years. In spite of having such material on the record, the petitioner was referred before the Medical Board for the determination of his age and the age of the other accused persons wherein the Medical Board determined the age of the petitioner to be about 19 years on 11.6.2010. Relying upon the report of the Medical Board the C.J.M. by his order dated 10.8.2010 rejected the prayer of the petitioner by holding that the age of the petitioner was more than 18 years on the date of alleged occurrence and in that manner the C.J.M. had conducted the enquiry himself under Section 7 A of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 which was appealable under Section 52 of the Act. The learned Sessions Judge, Koderma while dealing with the Criminal Appeal No. 25 of 2010 filed under Section 52 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act; 2000 against the order of the C.J.M. dated 10.8.2010 observed that the provisions of Section 52 of the Act should be agitated by an aggrieved juvenile in conflict with law as against the order recorded by competent authority under this Act but in the case of the petitioner -appellant since he was not declared juvenile under Section 2(g) of the Act, the order passed by the C.J.M., Koderma cannot be held to be an order of a competent authority under the Act and therefore, it was held by the learned Sessions Judge that the appeal under Section 52 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 was not maintainable in his Court and recorded the dismissal Of appeal. I find from the fact stated above that when the competent court of Juvenile Justice Board was available in the district of Headquarter Koderma, without referring the matter of the petitioner for determination of the age of the petitioner -Anand Kumar Verma, the learned C.J.M. himself made an enquiry under Section 7 A of the Act and found the petitioner not a juvenile, ignoring the settled principle of Rule 22(5) of Jharkhand Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2003 wherein a guideline was given to the Juvenile Justice Board or to any other authority or an enquiry conducted under Section 7 A of the Act. I find that the Rule 22 could not be followed in letters and spirit by the learned C.J.M. and that the learned Sessions Judge, Koderma also erroneously held, in the facts and circumstances, that the appeal preferred under Section 52 of the Act was not maintainable.
(3.) IT is relevant to mention that after the appeal was dismissed, the petitioner had again filed a petition before the C.J.M. for remitting his case record by spliting up from the original record to the Juvenile Justice Board, Koderma for determination of the age but the same was also rejected only on the ground that he had already rejected the prayer of the petitioner on 22.4.2010 by determining him to be a major. There was no need to pass any further order on subsequent petition of the petitioner dated 18.12.2010 and accordingly by the order dated 1.12.2010 the petition of the petitioner dated 18.11.2010 was also disposed of by the C.J.M.;