MUHAMMAD NAWAB ALI vs THE STATE and anothers

ORDER

' Muhammad Nawab Ali, the petitioner has brought the instant revision petition calling in question the order dated 20-8-2003 recorded by Ch. Abdul Hamid, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pakpattan Sharif whereby he has accepted an application of the respondent No.2 Karam Ali alias Mehboob for ordering his separate trial as Juvenile according to the scheme of Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000.

2. Briefly the facts relevant for the disposal of the instant petition are that respondent No.2 is one of the accused persons sent up to face trial in case F.I.R. No.4 dated, 8-1-2003, under sections 302/337-A(i)(ii)/ 337-F(i) 337-L(ii)/148/ 149, P.P.C. Registered with Police Station, Dalwariyam District Pakpattan Sharif. He in the same made an application before the learned trial Court for his separate trial than the other accused being juvenile according to the intention of Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000. He in support of his such plea relied upon his School Leaving Certificate.

According to the 'same his date of birth is 3-4-1988. The incident is alleged to have taken place on 6-1-2003. The said entry, if kept in view, his age at that time i.e. The alleged incident was less than 15 years. The petitioner/ complainant in the case contested the said application. He also produced his (respondent No.2) copy of birth entry from the record of Union Council No.32 Headquarter 85/D Tehsil and District Pakpattan Sharif. According to the same, his date of birth is 10-3-1984. Anyway, the learned Court concerned referred the matter to the Medical Board for opinion in respect of his age. The Medical Board opined that his age is about 16/17 years. In these circumstances, it was held that he was less than 18 years of age at the time of the alleged incident. The learned Additional Sessions Judge with the same accepted his application and ordered his separate trial than his co- accused under Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000.

3. The petitioner feeling himself aggrieved of the impugned order has come to this Court with the instant petition.

4. It has been argued on his behalf that the age of respondent No.2 was more than 18 years at the time of the alleged incident as is obvious from his birth entry produced by him (petitioner) but the learned Court concerned has wrongly ignored the same and given preference to the respondent No.2's School Leaving Certificate and the opinion of the Medical Board and so the impugned order is not only illegal but improper as well. It has been requested that the same may be set aside and direction for trial of respondent No.2 by the ordinary Court may be issued.

5. I have considered his submissions and gone into the copies of the documents annexed to the petition.

6. Respondent No.2 has asserted himself to be the Juvenile within the meaning assigned to the word in Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000 and claimed his separate trial than his co- accused. He in support of his such plea has relied upon his School Leaving Certificate. The same has shown his age as 3-4-1988. As against the same, the petitioner-complainant has disputed his age. According to him, he was more than 18 years of age at the time of the alleged incident and the School Leaving Certificate relied upon by him is not worth placing reliance in the matter. He has relied upon the birth certificate shown to be of him (respondent No.2). The same seems to have been issued by the Secretary, Union Council No.32, Headquarter 85/D Tehsil and District Pakpattan- Sharif and the same has shown his date of birth as 10-3-1984. These two documents have shown different dates of birth of respondent No.2. Anyway, the learned Court concerned has referred the matter to the Medical Board for opinion in respect of his age. The Medical Board has expressed opinion in that regard. According to the same, his age is about 16/17 years. In these circumstances, the learned Court concerned has accepted his application and ordered his separate trial than his co-accused under the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000. The section 7 of the said Ordinance reads as under:-- "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."

' The above provision clearly shows that whenever there is dispute about the age of a child an inquiry shall be held into the same, which shall also include the medical opinion.

7. The parties when were at variance as regards the age or date of birth of respondent No.2 and documentary proof produced by them in support of their respective assertions was contradictory to each other, then referring the matter to Medical Board for opinion was necessary and proper.

The Board has opined that he is 16/17 years old. In such circumstances, the opinion of the Medical Board was more preferable than the other proof produced by the parties. Hence the learned lower Court was right in relying upon the medical opinion and giving effect to the same. The acceptance of the application of respondent No.2, thus for the purpose was right action in the circumstances of the case. The same calls for no interference by this Court in the exercise of it's revisional jurisdiction.

The instant revision petition having no merit is dismissed in limine.

Revision .