HARISH CHANDRA MISHRA, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 3.11.2010 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Simdega in S.T. No.193 of 2009, whereby the plea taken by the petitioner being a juvenile has been rejected by the learned court below after making an inquiry.
(2.) IT appears that the petitioner is an accused for the offence under Sections 147/148/149/353/307/121A IPC, under Section 25(1 -B)(a)/26/27/35 of Arms Act , under Section 13 of U.A.P. Act, under Section 17 CLA act and 3 / 4 of Explosive Substance Act in connection with Kolebira P.S. Case No.29 of 2009 corresponding to G.R. No. 218 of 2009 and facing the trial before the learned Sessions Judge, Simdega in Sessions Trial No.193 of 2010. At the time of trial, the petitioner has taken plea that he was juvenile at the date of occurrence and produced the documents in support of his claim, which appear to have been disbelieved by the Court below. Further, taking into consideration the physical built up of the petitioner, as also due to the fact that the plea of being juvenile was taken at a belated stage in order to lingering the case, the learned Sessions Judge has rejected the plea of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order passed by the Court below is absolutely illegal and the inquiry has not been conducted in the manner provided under Rule 22 of the Jharkhand Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Child) Rules, 2003 which provides that in such cases the opinion of Medical Board should also have been obtained and considered by the Court below. It is submitted that if the Court below disbelieved the documents produced by the petitioner in support of his age, at least the opinion of the Medical Board ought to have been taken by the learned Sessions Judge and the same ought to have been considered by the Sessions Judge. Learned counsel accordingly, submitted that the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.
(3.) LEARNED APP on the other hand has submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned order worth interference in the revisional jurisdiction in as much as after an enquiry it was found that the petitioner was not a juvenile and at the time of his remand he had given his age to be 19 years. The Court below has also taken in to consideration the physical built of the accused in the Court and found that he is not a juvenile.;