The petitioner, in the case of Gajab Singh V State of Haryana, was indulged in the case u/s 148 (Rioting, armed with a deadly weapon), 149 (Every member of unlawful assembly guilty of the offense committed in the prosecution of common object), 307(attempt to murder), 506 (punishment for criminal intimidation), 452 (House-trespass after preparation for hurt, assault or wrongful restraint) IPC as well as 25/(54 (Renewal of licenses) /59 of the Arms Act.
Brief Facts of the Case
The petitioner had filed an application stating that at the time of the commission of offense he was a juvenile; claimed that he was less than 18 years. This application was adjudicated by the Judicial Magistrate I class, it was held that the DOB of the petitioner was 07.08.1996. Therefore on the date of commission of such crime, he was more than 18 years. Aggrieved by this order he filed an appeal before the court of Additional Sessions Judge and the court also dismissed the appeal and upheld the same order. Aggrieved by this lower appellate court’s order he filed this revision petition before the Punjab & Haryana HC.
Arguments before the court
Counsel for petitioner argued that as per Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice Rules, 2007, the priority had to be given to the matriculation certificate, if available. The court could also rely upon the birth certificate from the school but only if a matriculation certificate is not available.
It was submitted that as the matriculation certificate was itself available, therefore the other certificate should be excluded.
Counsel for complainant argued that the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 had replaced the earlier provisions laid down in the Rules. The new provision had been enacted. As per such provision, the matriculation certificate does not have the place of priority, while calculating the age of the accused.
The State Counsel also argued that the investigating agency had already submitted the useful records before the Board at the time of calculating the age of the accused. The DOB mentioned in the Govt. school record was 07.08.1996. Therefore, the same date should rightly be taken by the courts as the DOB of the accused.
Observation of the court
The court observed that it has found no substance in the arguments of the counsel for the petitioner. The provision on which the petitioner’s counsel stressing had already been replaced by the stated Act, 2015. And the New provision directs the procedure for calculation of the age of the accused.
The decision of the court
After relying on the new provision of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 for the calculation of the age of the accused, the court has found no ground for interference, and subsequently, the present petition was dismissed.
Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgment from courts. Follow us on Google News, Instagram, LinkedIn, Facebook & Twitter. You can subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.
