Crl. Rev. No.1683 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Rev. No.1683 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 15.7.2009 Manjit Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. M.S. Sidhu, Advocate, for the petitioner. Rajan Gupta, J. This is a revision petition against the order dated 13.6.2009, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur whereby he held that respondent No.2 was a juvenile and thus he be separately tried from the other accused. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge is palpably wrong as he ignored from consideration the relevant evidence which would clearly show that the petitioner was not a juvenile. Learned counsel has referred to various documents, Annexures P-1 to P-3 in this regard. He has submitted that from a perusal of the voters-list (Annexure P-1), report of Sub Inspector of Police, Police Station Makhu (Annexure P-2) and birth-certificate (Annexure P-3) as well as certain depositions made before the court, there is no room of doubt that the petitioner was was a Crl. Rev. No.1683 of 2009 2 juvenile at the time of commission of crime. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and given careful thought to the facts of the case. It is evident from a perusal of the impugned order that the trial court examined the entire evidence available before it and came to the conclusion that the petitioner was a juvenile when the crime was committed. The school leaving certificate, now relied upon by the complainant/petitioner was also considered by the trial court. It came to the conclusion that even if date of birth of Gurmail Singh, respondent No.2 was taken to be 5th August, 1990, as claimed by the petitioner, even then the accused Gurmail Singh would be a juvenile at the time of alleged occurrence i.e. 4th March, 2008. The court thus held that Gurmail Singh was a juvenile at the time of commission of crime. Earlier respondent No.2 Gurmail Singh approached this court praying for quashing of order dated 29th November, 2008, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur, refusing to declare him a juvenile. The said revision (CRR No.177 of 2009) came up for hearing before this court (Rajive Bhalla, J.) on 7.5.2009 which was disposed of by an order, operative part whereof reads thus:- “In view of the birth certificate, filed by the State of Punjab, the petitioners' age on the date of the offence would have to be reconsidered by the trial court, after permitting all parties concerned to lead evidence for and against their respective contentions. The revision petition is, therefore, allowed, the order dated 29.11.2008 is set-aside. Crl. Rev. No.1683 of 2009 3 Parties are directed to appear before the Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur, on 28.05.2009. The Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur, is directed to decide the petitioner's application within a period of one month from the aforementioned date. In the meanwhile, proceedings against the petitioner before the trial Court shall be kept in abeyance awaiting the outcome of the petitioner's application.” The matter was thereafter reconsidered by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur and the entire evidence was re-appraised. A conclusion was arrived at regarding the juvenility of respondent No.2 Gurmail Singh. I do not find any infirmity with the order passed by the trial court. In my considered view, there is no ground to remit the case again to the same court for re-appraisal of the evidence on the question of juvenility. This process cannot be allowed to go on perpetually. Under the circumstances, the present petition is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE July 15, 2009 'rajpal'