Zaighum Abbas vs The State
This criminal revision petition concerns the determination of the age of an accused person for the purpose of trial under the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000. The core legal question was whether the trial court had properly conducted an inquiry into the age of the accused, given conflicting evidence regarding his age, including a medical board report and a birth certificate. The Lahore High Court observed that the trial court had failed to conduct the mandatory inquiry as stipulated by the relevant statutory provisions. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order of the Additional Sessions Judge and remanded the case back to the trial court. The Court held that the trial court must conduct a fresh, detailed inquiry into the age of the accused, taking into account both oral assertions and documentary evidence, before determining the appropriate forum for the trial. This judgment reinforces the principle that strict compliance with statutory inquiry procedures regarding juvenile status is essential for ensuring a fair trial and proper jurisdictional determination.
- Is a trial court required to conduct a detailed inquiry into the age of an accused under Section 7 of the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance 2000?
- Can a trial court's order regarding the age of an accused be set aside if it fails to consider both oral and documentary evidence?
- Does a failure to conduct a proper age inquiry necessitate a remand of the case to the trial court?
- Section 7, Juvenile Justice System Ordinance 2000
ORDER
KHAWAJA MUHAMMAD SHARIF, J.- ln response to this Court's order dated 26.6.2002, learned counsel for the accused submits that according to opinion of the Medical Board dated 21.3.2002, respondent accused was found to be 20 years of age. He submits that the birth certificate which has now been placed on the record of this revision petition was never a part of the lower Court's record while this contention of learned counsel for the accused is being rebutted by learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. Learned A.A.-G. Submits that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, an inquiry as provided under Section 7 of the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000 has not been held by the learned Additional Session Judge. He submits that the case may be remanded with direction to the Trial Court to hold a fresh detailed inquiry as required under Section 7 of the Ordinance (ibid) and then to pass a proper order as to trial of the accused by which Court.
3. After hearing the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and the learned AAG, the order dated 16.4.2002 Passed by the learned Addl. Sessions. Judge is set aside and the case is remitted back to him to hold a fresh detailed inquiry as required under Section 7 of the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000, take into consideration the oral assertions as well as documentary evidence and then pass a proper order with regard to trial of the case in accordance with law.