MOKD SHADAB Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) C. A. Rahim, J. This revision has been preferred against the order dated 9-10-1991 passed by the learned Vth Additional District and Sessions Judge, Allahabad in S. T. No. 387 of 1990. By that order learned Judge refused to accept the prayer of the revisionist that his case be tried separate ly by competent court under the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the revisionist has sumitted that the finding of the learned Additional District Judge with regard to the age of the revi sionist was not based on materials produced before him and, therefore, bad in law. He should have relied upon the birth certificate of the revisionist along with the affidavit filed by his mother and pass orders according to law referring the matter to a competent Juvenile Court for separate trial.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the revisionist has referred the case of Jayamala v. Stale of Jammu and Kashmir, reported in 1982 Cr LJ 1777 (SC) wherein it has been held that margin of error in age ascertained by radiological examination is two years either way. A copy of the judgment dated 27-8-1990 passed in connection with Criminal Revision No. 1224 of 1990 has been filed on behalf of the revisionist, on the basis of the decision of Jaymala case it was held that then there was any possibility of variation benefit goes to the accused. In that case, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court (supra) it was held that the accused was a juvenile and order was passed accordingly.