Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.18 seconds)
Ajmer Singh vs State Of M.P. on 19 May, 2017 cites

Ajmer Singh vs State Of M.P. on 22 December, 2016

7. Learned counsel for respondent no.2 has placed reliance on the judgment in the case of Ashwani Kumar Saxena v. State of MP : 2013 (1) MPHT 109 (SC), 5 CRR No.464/2013 (Ajmer Singh v. State of MP & Another) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to Rule 12 of the Rules of 2007 and has categorically mentioned that what documents can be relied on to determine the age of a person. In para 34, it is specifically mentioned that in the absence of matriculation or equivalent certificate or the date of birth certificate from the School first attended, the Court need obtain the birth certificate from the School first attended other than the Play School. In the present case, it is not the case of the petitioner that respondent no.2 has passed matriculation or possessed of any other equivalent certificate. In absence of that, respondent no.2 was obliged to file details of his birth certificate from the School first attended other than the Play School. It is also not the case of the petitioner that the School, from which the record was produced and exhibited before the Court, was the Play School. Therefore, in absence of any such pleadings and evidence on record, the trial Court has rightly confined itself to the School record which definitely falls within the provisions of Clause (a) (ii) of Rule 12 (3) of the Rules of 2007 and therefore no illegality can be ascribed to the impugned order determining the age on the basis of the School record.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Ashwani Kumar Saxena vs State Of M.P on 13 September, 2012

7. Learned counsel for respondent no.2 has placed reliance on the judgment in the case of Ashwani Kumar Saxena v. State of MP : 2013 (1) MPHT 109 (SC), 5 CRR No.464/2013 (Ajmer Singh v. State of MP & Another) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to Rule 12 of the Rules of 2007 and has categorically mentioned that what documents can be relied on to determine the age of a person. In para 34, it is specifically mentioned that in the absence of matriculation or equivalent certificate or the date of birth certificate from the School first attended, the Court need obtain the birth certificate from the School first attended other than the Play School. In the present case, it is not the case of the petitioner that respondent no.2 has passed matriculation or possessed of any other equivalent certificate. In absence of that, respondent no.2 was obliged to file details of his birth certificate from the School first attended other than the Play School. It is also not the case of the petitioner that the School, from which the record was produced and exhibited before the Court, was the Play School. Therefore, in absence of any such pleadings and evidence on record, the trial Court has rightly confined itself to the School record which definitely falls within the provisions of Clause (a) (ii) of Rule 12 (3) of the Rules of 2007 and therefore no illegality can be ascribed to the impugned order determining the age on the basis of the School record.
Supreme Court of India Cites 40 - Cited by 294 - K Radhakrishnan - Full Document

Parag Bhati(Juvenile)Thr.Legal ... vs State Of U.P. on 12 May, 2016

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Parag Bhati v. State of UP & Another as reported in 2016 Cr.L.R. (SC) 492 and placing reliance on paragraphs 25, 26 and 27, it is submitted that even the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Abuzar Hossain alias Gulam Hossain v. State of West Bengal : (2012) 10 SCC 489 has summarized the position regarding what materials would 3 CRR No.464/2013 (Ajmer Singh v. State of MP & Another) prima facie satisfy the Court and/or are sufficient for discharging the initial burden. It has been held that the documents referred in Rule 12 (3) (a) (i) to (iii) shall definitely be sufficient for prima facie satisfaction of the Court about the age of the delinquent necessitating further enquiry under Rule 12. The credibility and/or acceptability of the documents would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no hard and fast rule can be prescribed that they must be prima facie accepted or rejected and if such documents prima facie inspire confidence of the Court, the Court may act upon such documents for the purposes of Section 7-A and order an enquiry for determination of the age of the appellant.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 15 - Cited by 49 - R K Agrawal - Full Document

Abuzar Hossain @ Gulam Hossain vs State Of West Bengal on 10 October, 2012

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Parag Bhati v. State of UP & Another as reported in 2016 Cr.L.R. (SC) 492 and placing reliance on paragraphs 25, 26 and 27, it is submitted that even the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Abuzar Hossain alias Gulam Hossain v. State of West Bengal : (2012) 10 SCC 489 has summarized the position regarding what materials would 3 CRR No.464/2013 (Ajmer Singh v. State of MP & Another) prima facie satisfy the Court and/or are sufficient for discharging the initial burden. It has been held that the documents referred in Rule 12 (3) (a) (i) to (iii) shall definitely be sufficient for prima facie satisfaction of the Court about the age of the delinquent necessitating further enquiry under Rule 12. The credibility and/or acceptability of the documents would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no hard and fast rule can be prescribed that they must be prima facie accepted or rejected and if such documents prima facie inspire confidence of the Court, the Court may act upon such documents for the purposes of Section 7-A and order an enquiry for determination of the age of the appellant.
Supreme Court of India Cites 49 - Cited by 163 - R M Lodha - Full Document
1