AMJAD KHAN vs MUMTAZ KHAN and others
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court, which determined the age of the petitioner, Amjad Khan, in a criminal case registered under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the High Court correctly relied upon a medical board report to determine the petitioner's age, specifically after the parties had previously concurred to accept the findings of such a board. The petitioner had sought to be tried as a juvenile offender, a plea initially rejected by the trial court but later contested through constitutional petitions. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal, holding that the High Court's reliance on the medical board report was proper, particularly because the parties had explicitly agreed to be bound by the board's determination. The key principle laid down is that where parties have mutually agreed to the constitution of a medical board and consented to accept its findings regarding the determination of age, they cannot subsequently challenge the validity of the resulting report absent any demonstrated illegality.
- Can a party challenge a medical board report regarding age determination after having previously consented to be bound by its findings?
- Is a High Court order based on the mutual concurrence of parties regarding a medical examination process legally sustainable?
- Does the determination of a medical board regarding the age of an accused override previous conflicting findings when the parties have agreed to accept the board's report?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' TANVIR AHMED. KHAN, J.---Leave to appeal is sought against the order, dated 16-8-2002 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore whereby a learned Single Judge of the High Court accepted the report submitted by the Board of doctors constituted with the concurrence of both the parties, through his earlier order passed on 13-8-2002 to determine the age of the petitioner.
2. Facts briefly are that a. Case was registered vide F.I.R. No,137 of 2000 on 26-12-2000 under section 302/34, P.P.C. At Police Station, Musa Khel, District Mianwali. After usual investigation the challan was submitted in the Court. Amjad Khan petitioner along with his co-accused submitted an application before the learned Sessions Judge, Mianwali for the transmission of the case to the Juvenile Offenders Court on the ground of minority. The learned Sessions Judge, Mianwali through his order, dated 4-8-2001 accepted the plea of co-accused Ijaz but rejected the same qua the petitioner directing that he be tried as an adult offender. Aggrieved of this order the petitioner filed Constitutional petition bearing W.P. No,17398/2001 showing certain certificates qua his age. The same was accepted and the case was remanded for decision afresh. Upon remand it was decided by the learned Court that the petitioner was below the age of 18 years. This order was challenged by the complainant through Writ. Petition No,12095/2002 which has been accepted through the impugned order, dated 16-8-2002 treating the petitioner as an adult. Hence this petition for leave to appeal.
3. We have considered the contentions raised by the learned counsel and have gone through the documents appended with this petition. It must be stated at the very outset that the occurrence in this case took place as far back as on 26-12-2000 i,e, about two years have passed by and the proceedings have not yet been put on right track. The learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court through an order, dated 9-8-2002 on the concurrence given by both the parties in categorical terms directed the Medical Superintendent of Mayo Hospital to constitute the Medical Board. The parties agreed that the determination of the Board would be acceptable. Consequent to this concurrence the order for constitution of the Board was passed by the learned Single Judge.
The petitioner was examined and relying upon the report the learned Single Judge set aside the earlier order of the trial Court, dated 22-6-2002 directing that the trial be held in the ordinary Court.
The learned counsel has failed to point out any illegality in the impugned order.
4. This petition is, therefore, dismissed. Leave refused.