Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.23 seconds)
Documents citing Sh. Puneet Vasudeva vs State & Anr. on 27 April, 2009

Vikas @ Sonu vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 9 November, 2011

4. From the above, it is seen that on the one hand there was a report submitted by the SHO verifying from the Principal of the school about the age of the petitioner being 4.9.1993 as per school record and on the other hand there was a report of District Basic Education Officer dated 28.3.2009 stating therein that the school leaving certificate issued by the principal of the school showing the date of birth of the petitioner to be 4.9.1993 to be a forged and fabricated document. Then there was also a report of ossification test mentioning the age of the petitioner to be over 20 years. Learned ASJ proceeded to record that the report of District Basic Education Officer appears to be genuine and more authentic than the report of constable Inder Raj submitted by the SHO. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner was that there was no reason or basis for learned ASJ to rely upon the report of District Basic Education Officer and to discard the Crl. MC No.1108/2010 Page 4 of 9 verification report submitted by the SHO after verifying the date of birth from the principal of the school. He also submitted that an inquiry was required to be conducted by the concerned court before recording the finding as regards the juvenility of the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of this Court in Puneet Vasudeva v State [2009(2) JCC 1415].
Delhi High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - M L Mehta - Full Document

Sunil vs State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) on 4 December, 2014

13.In 'Puneet Vasudeva Vs. State and others', MANU/DE/3640/2009 it was held that it is true that the determination of the age would depend upon facts and circumstances of each case and it is no doubt true that the Court must strike a balance. In case of a dispute, the Court may appreciate the evidence having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. It would be a duty of the Court of law to accord the benefit to a juvenile, provided he is one to give the same benefit who in fact is not a juvenile may cause injustice to the victim. Section 32 of the JJ Act also makes it obligatory to make an inquiry of the age of an accused and for that purpose to take such evidence as may be necessary. The Court is required to record a finding on the basis of evidence and material before it as to whether the accused was a juvenile or not.
Delhi District Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Zafruddin vs The State (Nct Of Delhi) on 16 January, 2012

6. The short point of controversy before this court is that whether just on the basis of verification report suggesting the said birth certificate of accused genuine, accused could be declared juvenile without recording of the evidence. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case title as "Shri Puneet Vasudeva vs. State & Anr., in Crl. Rev. Petition no. 610/2007" vide order dated 27.04.2009 had observed that in case of Zafruddin vs. State & Anr. 3 dispute raised by State or complainant over the juvenility, the inquiry has to be conducted u/s. 7A of Juvenile Justice Act after providing an opportunity of examination to the other side and without holding an inquiry in terms of section 7 of JJA, the impugned order of declaring juvenile cannot be sustained.
Delhi District Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1