Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: SHAFIQUE-UR-REHMAN VS Respondent: StateHonorable Justice Khawaja Muhammad SharifZafar Iqbal Chohan
2006 Y L R 731
2006 Y L R 731
[Lahore]
Before Khawaja Muhammad Sharif, J
SHAFIQUE-UR-REHMAN---Petitioner
Versus
THE STATE---Respondent
Criminal Revision No.702 of 2005, decided on 12th October, 2005.
Juvenile Justice System Ordinance (XXII of 2000)---
----S. 7---Age of accused, determination of-Jurisdiction of Juvenile Court---Medical Board which had examined accused had given its report about age of accused after about 4 months of the occurrence---Report of Medical Board showed that age of accused was 17 to 19 )ears---Police report indicated that age of accused at the time of his arrest was 15 to 16 years and according to birth certificate accused was below 16 years of age---All said three documents were in favour of accused as according to said documents accused was less than 18 years of age at the time of occurrence---Impugned order passed by the Trial Court was set aside with observation that accused should be tried by Juvenile Court.
Muhammad Zakir v. State 2004 SCMR 121 ref.
Zafar Iqbal Chohan for Petitioner.
Zia Ullah Khan Niazi for Complainant.
Ch. Muhammad Hanif Khatana, Addl.A.-G.
Najeeb Ullah A.S.-I.
ORDER
KHAWAJA MUHAMMAD SHARIF, J.---In continuation of my order dated 9-9-2005 learned Addl. A.-G. submits that according to report of Medical Board the age of the petitioner was found to be 17 to 19 years so benefit of the same should go to the accused-petitioner.
2. On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant submits that two contradictory certificates were produced by the petitioner, that even according to report of Medical Board the age of the petitioner has been given as 17 to 19 years and according to him he is more than 18 years of age. He has also relied upon Muhammad Zakir v. State. 2004 SCMR 121.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the judgment cited by learned counsel for the complainant. In that judgment the Board was of the confirmed opinion that age of the accused was 20 years at the time of examination but in the case in hand at the time of examination, the age of the accused was 17 to 19 years, this report of Medical Board is dated 13-7-2005 and the occurrence in this case had taken place on 25-3-2005, even according to police record when the petitioner was arrested, his age was given 15 to 16 years. Moreover, according to School Leaving Certificate, the age of the petitioner has been shown as 15-3-1990 and in birth certificate the date of birth of the petitioner was shown as 9-5-1998 and on this contradiction the learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the application of the petitioner but to my mind, three documents are in favour of the petitioner, first one is police record, where the age of the petitioner has been given as 15 to 16 years and the second is School Leaving Certificate, where his age has been given as 15-3-1990 while the third is report of Medical Board, where his age has been assessed as 17 to 19 years. It thus means that petitioner was less then 18 years of age at the time of occurrence. In this view of the matter, this petition is accepted and order dated 26-7-2005 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kallurkot is set aside with the observations that petitioner shall be tried by a Juvenile Court.
H.B.T./S-10/L????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Revision petition accepted.