MUHAMMAD ASLAM vs THE STATE and others
This criminal revision petition challenges an order passed by the Sessions Judge, Lodhran, denying the transfer of a criminal case to a Juvenile Court. The petitioner, facing trial for an offence under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, sought transfer under the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance 2000, claiming he was a child at the time of the offence. Although two medical boards determined the petitioner was 18 years old at the time of their respective examinations in 2001, the core legal question was whether the petitioner qualified as a 'child' under the Ordinance, which defines a child as someone under eighteen at the time of the commission of the offence. The High Court held that the relevant date for determining age is the date of the offence, not the date of the medical examination. Calculating the petitioner's age based on the date of the occurrence (3-9-1999), the Court found him to be approximately 16-1/2 years old. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order and directed the case to be transferred to the Juvenile Court for further proceedings.
- Is the age of an accused for the purposes of the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance 2000 determined at the time of the commission of the offence or the time of the medical examination?
- Does a person who is 18 years old at the time of medical examination qualify as a child under the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance 2000 if they were under 18 at the time of the offence?
- What is the scope of the Juvenile Court's jurisdiction regarding the trial of a child accused of an offence?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 2(b), Juvenile Justice System Ordinance 2000
- Section 4(3), Juvenile Justice System Ordinance 2000
- Section 7, Juvenile Justice System Ordinance 2000
ORDER
Petitioner is facing trial in case F.I.R. No, 222 of 2000 dated 3-9-1999 under section 302, P.P.C.
Registered at Police Station Dhanot. An application under subsection (3) of section 4 of Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000 was moved for transferring the case to the Court of learned Juvenile Court/Sessions Judge to try the case, on the ground that the accused was less than eighteen years of age on the day of occurrence. Upon this application, under the direction of the Court, Medical Board was constituted to examine the age of the petitioner and according to report dated 7-2-2001 (Annexure "C"), on the date of examination, petitioner was 18 years of age. This report was not acceptable to the complainant party and upon their request, second Medical Board was constituted, who examined the petitioner on 13-3-2001 and according to the same, petitioner was 18 years of age at the time of examination. The report is at Annexure 'F' with this petition.
2. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lodhran vide order dated 27-2-2001, referred the matter to Sessions Judge, Lodhran for appropriate order, who on the same day, referred the matter back to the concerned Additional Sessions Judge with the observation that "according to the Medical Report, accused is 18 years of age, therefore, he is not a child as defined in section 2(b) of the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance of 2000". Through this criminal revision, the order of Sessions Judge, Lodhran has been assailed.
3. Heard. File perused.
4. To resolve the controversy, reproduction of the relevant sections of Juvenile Justice System Ordinance of 2000 is essential, which read as follows:-- "Section 2. Definition.--(b) 'Child' means a person who at the time of commission of an offence has not attained the age of eighteen years,'
Section 4. Juvenile Courts.--(3) 'The Juvenile Court shall have the exclusive jurisdiction to try cases in which a child is accused of commission of an offence.' Section 7. Determination of age.--'If a question arises as to whether a person before it is a child for the purposes 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' ."
To determine the age of the petitioner, two Medical Boards were constituted, both of them unanimously observed that the age of the petitioner was 18 years on the day of examination i,e, 7- 2-2001 and 13-3-2001. To bring the case of a person within the fold of this Ordinance, as stated in the definition of child (i,e, section 2(b) of the ibid Ordinance) it is to be established that the person/accused was less than eighteen years of age at the time of occurrence. In this,view of the matter, if calculated, on the day of occurrence i,e, 3-9-1999 the petitioner was about 16-1/2 years of age and his case falls within the definition of child of the ibid Ordinance. The order of Sessions Judge, Lodhran dated 27-2-2001 is not sustainable and the same is set aside. The record of this case shall be sent to the concerned Juvenile Court for further proceedings.
5. With the above observation, the instant revision petition stands disposed of.