AHMAD SHER vs THE STATE and anothers
This criminal revision petition challenges an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sargodha, which declared the respondent a juvenile and directed the submission of a separate challan without conducting a medical ossification test. The core legal question was whether the trial court acted in accordance with the law by determining the respondent's age based solely on a school leaving certificate, without obtaining a medical report as required by the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000. The Lahore High Court held that the trial court erred in its procedure. The Court determined that the provisions of Section 7 of the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000, are mandatory, requiring a medical report for the determination of a child's age when such a question arises. Consequently, the High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the case to the trial court with directions to obtain a report from the Medical Board of the District Headquarter Hospital to determine the age of the accused afresh in accordance with the law.
- Is it mandatory for a Juvenile Court to obtain a medical report to determine the age of an accused under the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000?
- Can a trial court determine the age of an accused solely on a school leaving certificate without a medical report?
- What is the procedure for determining the age of an accused when a question of juvenility arises before a court?
- Section 7, Juvenile Justice System Ordinance 2000
ORDER
' SYED SAJJAD HUSSAIN SHAH, J.--- Petitioner Ahmad Sher through the instant petition has challenged the order dated 28-3-2006 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sargodha whereby he accepted the petition moved by respondent No,2 and declared him juvenile and directed the S.H.O. For submission of separate challan.
2. It is contended that according to section 7 of the Justice Juvenile System Ordinance, 2000, it was mandatory upon the trial Court to have ossification test of respondent No,2-accused and thereafter could only form its opinion about the age of said respondent.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No,2 opposed this petition half-heartedly and submitted that as the school leaving certificate is genuine and was not objected by the petitioner before the trial Court, therefore, the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge is correct and legal. He further submitted that respondent No,2 is ready to have ossification test as contemplated in Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. Section 7 of the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000 is reproduced hereunder:-- "If a question arises as to whether a person before it is a child for the purpose of this Ordinance, the Juvenile Court shall record a finding after such inquiry which shall include a medical report for determination of the age of the child."
6. A bare perusal of section would show that the provisions of having a medical report is mandatory in nature. So, it was obligatory for the trial Court to have a medical report to determine the age of the accused for the purposes of Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000, I am, thus, fully convinced that the trial Court erred in not getting a report from the Medical Board of D.H.Q. For determination of the age of the accused/respondents. Even otherwise, learned counsel for respondent No,2 has submitted that respondent No,2 is willing to have an ossification test as contemplated in the Ordinance. In these circumstances, order, dated 28-3-2006 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sargodha is set aside and case is remitted back for decision afresh in accordance with law, after having a report from Medical Board of District Headquarter Hospital with regard to the age of the accused/respondent No,2.
7. This revision is allowed in the above terms.
Cited by 3 cases
- ABDUL SAMAD vs KAMRAN and another 2019 P Cr. L J 313
- Mst. NUSRAT BIBI vs The STATE and another 2016 P Cr. LJ 732
- MUHAMMAD IQBAL vs THE STATE and another 2007 P Cr. L J 976