Chattisgarh High Court
Ku. Nazo Alias Nazia Begum vs The State Of M.P. on 7 December, 2000
Equivalent citations: 2001(5)MPHT39(CG)
Author: R.S. Garg
Bench: R.S. Garg
ORDER
R.S. Garg, Ag. C.J.
1. By this petition under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C., the applicant seeks to challenge the correctness, validity and propriety of the order dated 7-9-1994 passed in sessions Trial No. 65/91 by the learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur.
2. The grievance of the present applicant appears to be that on the date of the incident she was below 17 years of age, therefore, under the provisions of Juvenile Justice Act she should be tried by a competent Juvenile Court and as the Court below has refused to make an enquiry into her age, the order passed by court below deserves to be quashed. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that on an earlier occasion the very same question relating to the age of the present applicant had come to the High Court in Criminal Revision No. 283/1991 and the High Court in its judgment dated 10-2-1993 has clearly observed that the girl was about 18 years of age, therefore, there is no need of enquiry. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the earlier order of the High Court is wrong and was passed without holding an enquiry into the age of the applicant, therefore, to do complete justice to the applicant, an enquiry must be held.
3. I have heard the parties.
4. In criminal Revision No. 283/1991 in paragraph No. 6 of the judgment the High Court has clearly observed that "In view of the obvious evidence on the question of age, the order passed by IInd Additional District Judge, on 3-5-1991 is set aside. It is directed Kum. Nazo be added in the array of accused". From these observations it would clearly appear that the High Court was of the opinion that the girl was not a juvenile and the order dated 3-5-1991 directing to hold an enquiry into the age of the accused was not proper.
5. Once the question relating to the age stands concluded by the order of the High Court, then any Court subordinate to the High Court cannot make an enquiry into the question of the age. Even for this court, at this stage, it would not be possible to exercise powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., because any order contrary to the earlier order of the High Court would run contrary to the judicial propriety and in any case would tantamout to review of the earlier order which is not permissible under the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure.
6. In view of the discussion aforesaid, the petition deserves to and is accordingly dismissed.