JUDGMENT
B.J. Shethna, J.
1. This misc. petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. before this Court on 16.12.2000 against the impugned order dated 15.5.1995 passed by Juvenile Justice Court, Bikaner in Juvenile Cr. Case No. 14/95 whereby the learned Juvenile Court upon the application of the complainant, transferred the case of the petitioner accused to the Court of Civil Judge (JD) and Judicial Magistrate, Bikaner for trial in usual manner of proceeding under Cr.P.C.
2. The impugned order dated 15.5.1995 passed by the learned Juvenile Court was challenged by the petitioner accused after a period of more than 5 years and 7 months. No explanation whatsoever is given for such a gross delay.
3. However, it was submitted by learned Counsel Mr. Singh that there is no period of limitation for filing the misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. before this Court, therefore, this Court should decide this petition on merits in accordance with law. He also submitted that the reason for gross delay of 5 years and 7 months was that the petitioner accused has now become major, therefore, he has approached this Court in 2000.
4. It is true that no period of limitation is prescribed under the Act for filing the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. but in my considered opinion, the petitioner should have filed this petition within a reasonable time and not after a gross delay of 5 years and 7 months. An oral explanation which is sought to be offered by learned Counsel Mr. Singh that he has become major and, therefore, he has filed this petition has not substance. Thus, therefore, on this ground of gross delay of more than 5 years and 7 months, this petition was required to be dismissed.
5. Even on merits, the petitioner has no case because the learned Judge after considering the material on record, held that on the date of commission of offence, the petitioner was not a juvenile as he was about 16. However, it was submitted by learned Counsel Mr. Singh that before coming to the conclusion that the petitioner accused was above 16, no evidence was led before the Juvenile Court and on the basis of school certificates and opinion of the doctor, the learned Judge could not have come to the conclusion that the accused was above 16.
6. Section 32 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 provides that where it appears to a competent authority that the person brought before it is a juvenile, then it shall make due enquiry as to the age of the person and for that purpose, shall take such evidence as may be necessary and record a finding whether the person is a juvenile or not, stating his age as nearly as may be. Accordingly, when the learned Judge made the enquiry and after considering the evidence in the form of school leaving certificate and the opinion of the doctor regarding his age, came to the conclusion that the age of the accused was above 16, therefore, he should be tried by the regular competent criminal court, then this Court certainly will not interfere with such orders in its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
7. Learned counsel Mr. Singh submitted that there were two school leaving certificates produced before the Juvenile Court. First certificate dated 1.7.1984 shows that the birth date of accused was 1.7.1978. According to the said certificate, the age of certificate would be above 16. However, the subsequent school leaving certificate dated 15.2.1988 shows that the birth date of the petitioner accused was 1.2.1980 that means, he was below 16. He, therefore, submits that when there were two contradictory documents regarding the age of the accused, then it was not proper on the part of the learned Judge to rely upon the first school leaving certificate.
8. If this was the only material, then we could have considered the submission of Mr. Singh. But there is an additional material in the form of opinion of the doctor who has after examining the accused certified that he would have been above 16. In that view of the matter, when the learned Judge has relied upon the first school leaving certificate coupled with the opinion of the doctor, then such a finding of fact recorded by the learned Judge cannot be interfered by this Court in its powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
9. In view of the above discussion, this petition is dismissed. Stay petition is also dismissed.