sIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CR. REV. No.408 of 2008
AWNI KANT son of Gopal Singh, resident of village Barka
Gaon,P.S.pakaridayal, East Champaran.
...petitioner
Versus
1. STATE OF BIHAR
...opposite party
For the petitioner : Mr.Binod Kumar Mishra
For the State : Mr.J.Upadhyay, APP
-----------
03. 06.08.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
counsel for the State.
Petitioner claims himself to be juvenile. According to
him, his date of birth is 05.02.1987. He is facing charge(s) punishable
under diverse section of the Penal Code including 307 IPC. in relation
to an occurrence that had taken place on 03.10.2003 which gave rise
Trial No.2488/07 of the court of learned SDJM,Sikarhana, Motihari.
Apart from the present case, petitioner was also made accused in
Pakridayal P.S.Case No.33/03 instituted under diverse section of the
Penal Code including section 307 IPC. The said case was lodged
with regard to an occurrence committed on 26.05.2003. It appears
that the petitioner made a claim for being declared juvenile in the said
case which had given rise to Trial No.1241/07. The matter was
enquired into in terms of the provisions contained in Juvenile Justice
(Care and Protection) Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) and a
finding was recorded therein on 07.06.2007 (Annexure-4), whereby
he was found and declared a juvenile. In the present case, an
application was filed on 8.01.2008 (Annexure-2) for declaring him
juvenile in terms of the adjudication already made by a competent
-2-
court but in connection with different case. The said application of the
petitioner was considered and rejected by order dated 12.02.2008
passed in Trial No.2488/07. This is the order which has been made
impugned in the present case.
Learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the
legality of the order, submits that reasonings assigned by learned
court below is ex facie contrary to law and the facts appearing from
the record. Once such a claim is raised, the court in seisin of the
matter has to consider the same in terms of the provisions contained in
the Act and then a finding is to be recorded. Learned counsel submits
that in the present case there was no need of any enquiry as in a
different matter the claim of the petitioner has already been upheld
and he was declared juvenile by a competent court. It is thus the
contention of the petitioner that order impugned passed by learned
court below needs to be interfered with and set aside.
Learned counsel for the State, looking at the
documents placed along with the present application, is not in a
position to dispute the submissions advanced on behalf of the
petitioner.
Having considered the submissions advanced on
behalf of the parties and after going through materials on record, this
Court is satisfied that the order impugned is not in accordance with
law. Once an application has been filed claiming the juvenility the
court has to deal with the said application in terms of the provisions
contained in the Act and thereafter pass an appropriate order in
-3-
accordance with law.
For the reasons aforementioned, the application is
allowed. The order dated 12.02.2008 is quashed and set aside.
Let the court below pass a fresh order in accordance
with law on the application (Annexure-2) filed by the petitioner
hr ( Kishore K. Mandal )