CRR No.3006 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR No.3006 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision:17.12.2010 Tinku ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.YD Kaushik, Advocate for the petitioner Mr.Amandeep Singh, AAG, Haryana *** Ram Chand Gupta, J.(Oral) The present revision petition has been filed by petitioner Tinku against the order dated 21.8.2010 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Palwal, vide which application of the petitioner for declaring him as a juvenile, was dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record carefully. It has been contended by learned counsel for the revision- petitioner that date of birth of the accused- petitioner, as per certificate Ex. A-1 issued by Government Primary School, Deeghot, is 2.4.1993 and that hence, the petitioner was 16½ years of age on the date of alleged occurrence i.e. 12.12.2009. Hence, it is contended that the trial court has committed material irregularity and illegality in not declaring him a CRR No.3006 of 2010 (O&M) 2 juvenile. On the other hand, it has been contended by learned counsel for the respondent-State that date of birth of the applicant-appellant, as recorded in Ex.A-1, is not correct and that as per admission and withdrawal register of another school, in which petitioner used to study, his date of birth has been mentioned as 22.5.1991 as per Ex.R-I, which is duly proved before learned trial Court. Further contends that even as per the deposition of mother of the petitioner, age of the petitioner comes to more than 18 years. Magan Singh Head Master of Government Primary School, Deegot has appeared as AW1 and proved the date of birth certificate of the petitioner as 2.4.1993 on the basis of the entry made in the school register and however deposed that the said entry was made on the basis of form filled up by father and no birth certificate was attached with the form filled up by the father of the petitioner. Other evidence adduced by the petitioner on the point is statement of mother of the petitioner Smt.Dropati, who deposed that petitioner studied upto 10th class in a private school in Deegot. She further deposed that she is having three children and that her daughter Mansa is 1½ year younger to petitioner Tinku. As per the certificate Ex.R-I placed on record on behalf of the prosecution, the date of birth of the petitioner is 22.5.1991 and as per the certificate Ex.R-3 placed on record on behalf of the prosecution, the date of birth of his sister Mansa is 10.10.1992. Hence, if Ex.R-1 and Ex.R-3 are read in the light of the deposition of mother of the petitioner, it shows that CRR No.3006 of 2010 (O&M) 3 age of the petitioner was 18 years and 7 months on the date of occurrence i.e. 12.12.2009. In view of these facts, the trial court has rightly rejected the application of the petitioner by holding that the petitioner was not a juvenile on the date of occurrence. Hence, it cannot be said that trial court has committed any illegality or material irregularity in passing the impugned order dismissing the application of the petitioner, warranting interference by this Court. The present revision petition is accordingly dismissed being devoid of any merit. December 17, 2010 (RAM CHAND GUPTA) gsv JUDGE