IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 1ST JULY 2011 / 10TH ASHADHA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 2000 of 2011 ---------------------------------- [CC.NO.321/2007 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, RAMANKARI] .................... PETITIONER: ------------------- SHIJO VARGHESE, S/O.VARGHESE, VALIYAPURACKAL VEEDU, PAZHAVEEDU WARD, PAZHAVEEDU.P.O., ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.B.PRAMOD. RESPONDENT: ---------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. V. MANU. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: CRL.M.C.NO.2000/2011: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES: ANNEXURE-I: COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT IN C.C. NO. 321/2007 OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, RAMANKARY. ANNEXURE-II: COPY OF THE FIRST PAGE OF THE S.S.L.C. BOOK ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER. RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.2000 of 2011 --------------------------------------- Dated this 01st day of July, 2011 ORDER Petitioner is the first accused in C.C.No.321 of 2007 of the Court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ramankary for offence punishable under Sec.379 r/w Sec.34 of the Indian Penal Code. Allegation is that petitioner and others committed theft of gas cylinder. Learned Magistrate convicted petitioner (and others) and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment. Petitioner has challenged his conviction and sentence in Crl.Appeal.No.118 of 2010 which is pending before learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track- II, Alappuzha. 2. Learned counsel submitted that even as per the S.S.L.C certificate of petitioner, he was aged only 15 years on the date of alleged incident and hence he could not have been tried along with others in the regular Court. According to the learned counsel, petitioner could have been tried only before the Juvenile Justice Board as per the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. Hence it is prayed that proceeding against petitioner may be quashed. Alternatively it is prayed that petitioner may be permitted to raise the contention in Crl.M.C.No.2000 of 2011 2 the appeal preferred against conviction and sentence. I have heard learned Public Prosecutor also. 3. Having heard both sides, the appropriate course as it appears to me is to permit petitioner raise the contention before learned Additional Sessions Judge who is hearing Crl.Appeal.No.118 of 2010. Resultantly this criminal miscellaneous case is disposed of permitting petitioner to urge the alleged juvenility of petitioner as on date of incident before learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track-II), Alappuzha who is hearing Crl.Appeal.No.118 of 2010. Learned Additional Sessions Judge shall consider the contention while hearing the appeal and enter appropriate finding as provided under law. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-