^ €Q. HSGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR Cr.M.P.Mp. 11 012008 ^^_ Petitioner Kaiela @ Tinku Gupta (Juveniie), S/o. Shrin (injail) Ramji Gupta, aged about 16 years, at present 17 % years, r/o. Sattipara, Ambikapur, Distt. Sarguja (CG), through naiurai guardian Shri Ramji Gupta, S/o. Ram Prasad Gupta, aged about 60 years, r/©. Sattipara, Ambikapur, Dist. Sarguja (CG). Respondent Versus State of Chhatiisgarh, through Station Incharge, Ambikapur, Dlstt. Sarguja (CG). (Application under Section 482 ofthe Cr.P.C.) SB: Hon'ble Mr. T.P. SHARMA, J. Present: Shri A.N.Pandey, counsel for the pettlioner. Shri U.K.S. Chandel, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORDgR (Passed on 7-3-2008) This petition is dtrected againstthe order dated 13-2-2007 passed in Criminal Revisjon No.5/2007 by the 2"d Additional Sessions Judge, Ambikapur, District Sarguja, arising out of the order dated 23-12-2006 passect by the Chief JudiciaS Magistrate, Ambikapur, in Criminal Case No,. 937 of 2006. 1. 2) The indisputeble facts, in nutsheli, are that the petitioner has been arrested bythe Polce, Ambikapur, on 11-10-2£X)6 forthe offence punishabie under Sections 147,148,149 and 302 ofthe IPC. The all^gation against the petitioner is that on 10-10-20)6 petitioner aiong with Badal, Ramlal, Chotu an Bhunti assaulted orie Babiuas a resuit of which Bablu died on the spot. After completion of investigation, a charge-sheet against the petWoner and -2-- ® ^. other co-accused has been fited before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambikapur and on the basis of charge sheet a criminai case No.937/2006 was registered against the petitioner and other co-accused. The applicant has filed an application before the Chief Judiciat Magistrate, Ambikapur, on the ground that he is a juveniie and his case may be sent to Juveniie Justlce Board. After giving opportunities to the partles, the appiicatlon was rejected and the order of rejection was confirmed by the 2" AddStSonal Sessjons Judge, Ambikapur by the impugned order. 3) it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the Searned Chi^ JudiclaS Magistrate as well as learned Additional Sessions Judge have erred in not properiy appreciating the age of the petitioner on the basts of evidence available on record during enquiry of age of the p^Woner, therefore, the orders passed by the lower Courts are fiabSe to b©set aside. 4) Trial court's finding in regard to the age of th@ petitSoner on the basis of Dakhil Kharij register, the statemente of the mother and father of the petitioner and also the statement of the Prindpal of the School, where tie petitioner studied, the date of birth is recorded as 2-6-90. Copy of the statement of father of the applicant has been fiied on behalf of the applScant which reveals that he has informed the school regarding date of birth csS the applicant at the time of admission of the appiicant. According to school register, the date of birth ofTinku Gupta appeared as 2-6-1990. Accordmg to the statement of father of the applicant, date of birth of his son Kaiela Gupta is 2-6-1990. There is nothing to show on record that Kaiela Gupta or Tinku Gupta is one and the same. No document or copy of the death and birth register has been filed on behaSf ofthe applicant. ^ •2>- 5) After taking into consideration the discrepancy and non-a^ajiabiitty of certificate from death and birth register, conclusive inference is not possible. The applicant has filed his objection at the early stage. A detailed inquiry would be necessary. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 23-12-20CB is quashed and the petition is allowed. 6) Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambikapur, Is direeted to hcrid a fresh ©nquiryregarding the age of the applicant and proceed in accordance with law. Sd/- -T.P. Sharma Judge Raju ^r-