BABLOO PASI v. STATE OF JHARKHAND & Anr.

2.3 It is well settled that save in certain exceptional situations, the principle of audi alteram partem mandates that no one shall be condemned unheard. (Para-10) [171,D] E F G

2.4 Having regard to the nature of controversy be- fore the High Court and the scheme of the relevant statu- tory provisions whereunder the High Court was exercis- ing its.jurisdiction, the 'fairness in action'. did demand that the complainant was given an opportunity of hearing in H ~ \ J ...;__ 164 SUPREME COURT REPORTS . [2008] 14 S.C.R. ·r-. \ f '· \ A the Revision Petition preferred by the accused. Moreover, he was impleaded as a party respondent and was obvi ously prejudiced by the order passed by the High Cqurt when the accused was declared to be a juvenile. There fore, the High Court was clearly in error in reversing the B - order passed by the Board without giving an opportunity of being heard to the appellant. Hence, the order of the High Court is set aside on this.short question alone. (Para- 11) [171,F-H; 172,~] C D

3.1 Determination of age of a delinquent, particularly in borderline cases, is rather a complex exercise. The Act as such does not lay down any fixed norms, which could be applied for determining the age of a person. Sub-Sec tion (1) of s. 49 of the Act provides for presumption and determination of age. From a bare reading of the provision, it is clear that it merely provides that when it appears to the competent authority viz., the Juvenile Justice Board, that the person brought before it is a juvenile, the Board is obliged to make an enquiry as· to the age of that person; for that purpose it shall take evidence as may be neces~ E sary and then record a finding whether the person in ques tion is a juvenile or not. (Paras-12 & 13) [172,B-C; 172,E-F] , .. F