The High Court · 2011

Present:- Mr. Veneet Sharma, Advocate M.M.S.BEDI The petitioner vide impugned order dated 16.4.2011 has been declared to be not a juvenile on an inquiry conducted in a case registered u/s 21 NDPS Act for having been found in possession of 2 kg of heroin while he was driving a motor cycle. Learned counsel has submitted that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has not held inquiry in consonance with the procedure presdcribed u/s 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules 2007, which prescribes that the Court or the Board deciding the juvenility, requires to prima facie find the age on the basis of physical appearance and thereafter the matriculation or equivalent certificates, if available, should be considered. The date of birth from the school record, if attached, has to be seen but in the absence of the above said documents, the birth certificate given by the corporation or a municipal authority or a panchayat should be taken into consideration.

Learned counsel has placed reliance on Harpreet Singh vs State of Haryana and another 2010(2) RCR (Criminal) 361 as well as the Cr.Rev 1440 of 2011 2 judgment of the Supreme Court in Rajinder Chandra vs State of Chhattisgarh 22021) RCR (Criminal) 586. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and gone though the evidence, which had been made available by the petitioner before the trial court for adjudication of his claim regarding juvenility, which consists of a certificate issued by the Education Department regarding 5th class ,indicating the date of birth of the petitioner as 20.7.1996 and a photocopy of the Register of admission and withdrawal (Ex.A2) of Govt. High School, Naushera Chhema, District Tarn Taran and document Ex.RW2/A, produced by the Chowkidar Jagjit Singh (RW 2). The court below after considering all the documents has arrived at a conclusion that the school certificate and entry in the register of Chowkidar regarding date of birth of the petitioner does not seem to be true and the record has been maneuvered only to get undue benefit of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Amendment Act, 2006.

The above said opinion has been formed on the following circumstances by the trial court :- i) The mother of the petitioner Parkash Kaur while appearing as AW 1 has not been able to tell the date of birth of the petitioner during the cross-examination. She was not even able to tell after how many years of her marriage the petitioner was born. ii) The petitioner himself during the course of interrogation had not disclosed himself to be minor or juvenile. iii) His maternal uncle Dalbir Singh had also not supplied any information to the police regarding the age. iv)In the identification certificate the petitioner has given his age as 19/20 years. In view of the above circumstances, the school certificate was Cr.Rev 1440 of 2011 3 found contrary to the certificate produced by the Chowkidar, which has cutting over it. I do not find any sufficient reason to re-appreciate the evidence to arrive at a different conclusion in the exercise of the revisional jurisdiction. Dismissed. July 7 , 2011 TSM (M.M.S.BEDI ) JUDGE