Delhi District Court
Mohd. Zahid vs The State Govt. Of Nct Delhi on 16 April, 2009
IN THE COURT OF SH. GURDEEP SINGH
ADDL. SESSION JUDGE-IV, NORTH EAST DISTRICT,
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
In re :-
Criminal Appeal No.: 20/2009
In the matter of :
1. Mohd. Zahid
S/o Sh. Ali Bux
R/o Vill. Attaganj, P.S. Salwan
Distt. Rai Barelli, UP ...Appellant
Versus
The State Govt. of NCT Delhi ...Respondent
FIR No. : 189/2008
PS : Shahdara
U/s : 302/307/34 IPC
ORDER
1. Vide this order I shall decide the criminal appeal U/s 52 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 against the order dated 13.2.2009 passed by Ms. Anuradha Shukla, Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Seva Kuteer, Kingsway Camp, Delhi-09.
2. It is stated the appellant had moved an application alongwith school leaving certificate and copy of parivar ragister for surrendering his son Mohd. Sadiq (Deliquent/Juvenile) before the Juvenile Justice Board. Page 1 of 6 Notice was issued to SHO/IO of the case for 8.10.2008. However on 3.10.2008 the concerned police has arrested the son of the appellant from his native place Rai Bareily and sent him to Tihar Jail.
3. On 8.10.2008 appellant moved another application before the court for issuance of production warrant of Delinquent/Juvenile from Tihar Jail, which was allowed and the delinquent was kept in observation home. However, on the back of appellant, IO moved an application before the court for carrying out ossification test of delinquent/juvenile. The said application was allowed by court without issuing notice to the appellant. When the appellant came to know about the test, the Ld. Counsel objected to the same. Thereafter, appellant requested the Juvenile Justice Board to lead evidence for proving school leaving certificate. The JJB allowed the appellant to lead the evidence. Principal of school appeared alongwith relevant documents. However, school leaving certificate was rejected on the ground that the school leaving certificate is of date 20.12.1990 and while the date of birth mentioned in the school record is 2.12.1990. Whereas in the school leaving certificate, Page 2 of 6 principal specifically mentioned that the actual date of birth of the delinquent/juvenile is 2.12.1990. It is further stated by the Ld. Counsel for the appellant that JJB has ignored the authentic documents and evidence of principal and relied upon Medical Board, hence the present appeal.
4. I have heard the Ld. Counsel for the appellant and Ld. Addl. PP for the state. Trial Court record was summoned and I have also gone through the record.
5. The JJB observed vide order dated 28.1.2009 that the IO has submitted that Madarsa is not recognized nor Madarsa has taken any certificate for admitting the child. The Principal of the Madarsa was examined by the Board who produced only admission form. It was also observed that there was also dispute regarding date of birth record in the Madarsa and while observing that where school record is not reliable medical board should have been given weightage and thereafter it was directed that the child be examined by Medical Board. The Medical Board was constituted which given the age of child between 24-25. On the basis of the same it was Page 3 of 6 directed that the child be produced before the Sessions Courts.
6. The grievance of Ld. Counsel for the appellant is that in addition to the School Leaving Certificate he has also filed copy of the Parivar register which was not considered by the JJB. It appears that Parviar Register was not brought to the notice of the JJB while it was passed the order. Ld. Counsel for the appellant has placed certified copy of the Parivar Register, which is given by Gram Panchayat, where the date of birth of accused Sadiq is shown as 1990.
7. On the basis of JJB record, I am of the opinion that Trial Court has not conducted the inquiry in a proper manner and statement of CW-1 has recorded on a written proforma and even does not bear the date under signature of the Principal Justice, JJB. Statement of IO has not been recorded which was relied upon by the Trial Court. None of the member of the medical board, who gave the age has been examined so as to afford the opportunity to the juvenile to question the same. In the light of the above discussion, I am of the opinion that the Page 4 of 6 trial court case is remanded back to the JJB to conduct inquiry considering Parivar register and in the manner as laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Babloo Passi Vs State of Jharkhand 2008 (4) RCR Criminal 7567.
8. Accordingly, the criminal appeal remanded back to the JJB. The parties are directed to appear before JJB. The inquiry be conducted preferably within one week from the receipt of the file. Trial court file be sent back alongwith the copy of the order and file be consigned to the record room Announced in the open court today i.e on 16/04/2009 (GURDEEP SINGH) ASJ-04/NORTH-EAST DISTRICT KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI 16.04.2009 Page 5 of 6 Cr. Rev. No. : 20/09 Zahid Vs. State 16.4.2009 Pr. : Sh. Virender Singh, Ld. Addl. PP for the state None for the revisionist Vide separate order announced today, the criminal appeal is remanded back to the JJB with the direction that inquiry be conducted in the manner which Hon'ble Supreme Court held in case of Babloo Passi Vs. State of Jharkhan 2008 (4) RCR Criminal 7567.
The parties are directed to appear before JJB on 23.4.2009.
Trial court file be sent back alongwith the copy of the order and revision file be consigned to the record room.
(GURDEEP SINGH) ASJ/KKD/16.4.2009 Page 6 of 6