HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Criminal Misc. Petition No. 481 OF 2009» PETITIONER Pawan Knmar Yadav, S/o Ramcshwar Yadav, aged about 32 years, R/o‘ Pachripara, Kurud District Dhamtari, (C,G.). Versus (1) Narcsh Sahuv S/o Johat Ram Sahu, aged about 20 years, R/o Pachripara, Kurud, District Dhamtari (C.G.). (2) State of Chhattisgarh, through Station House O$ce1z Police Station—Kurud, District Dhamtan', (C.G.). RESPONDENTS PETITION UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. (SB :Hon’ble Mr. T.P.8harma, J.) Present: Shr'i Sunil Sahu, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Devershi Thakur, Advocate for the respondent NO. 1. Shri Qamarul Aziz, P.L. for the State/respondent NO. 2. ORAL- ORDER (Passed on 1 1/ 12/2009) This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Cn‘minal Procedure, 1973 (in short ‘the Code’) against the order dated 28/ 1/2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Dhamtari in Sessions trial No. 50/2008 whereby learned Addiu'onal Sessions Judge, Dhamtari has directed ‘the prosecution to me the charge sheet against the respondent NO. 1 before the Juvenile Justice Board, Raipur on the ground that age of the respondent NO. 1 appears below 18 years on the date of the commisSion of the oh‘ence. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that only on the assumption that respondent No. 1 may be below the age of the 18 years Court below has directed the prosecution to hle charge sheet before the Juvenile Justice Board. The age of the accused in this case is material and there must be strong evidence to exclude every possibility of the age of the accused above 18 years and to ensure that age of the accused. on the @ date of commission of the oEcnce was below 18 years, before passing such order or direch'on but Coult below has not examined the case on this aspect and themby committed an illegality. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the petition and submits that Court below has rightly passed the order - impugned in accordance with Sections 6 8n 7 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, the only Juvenile Justice Board is empowered to deal with the matters relating to the juvenile means whose age is below 18 years on the date of commission of such odence and if the commission of such odence the age of the accused was r more than 18 years then the Juvenile Justice Board is not competent to try the oh'ence against such person and it excludes the jurisdiction to try such oEence, if any provisions gives the jurisdiction to try any kind of case or take out the jurisdiction to 11y such case then such should be proved strictly to exclude every such adverse possibility. The order reveals that only on the basis of school entry document and the report of Radiologist, statement of the mother of the respondent N0. 1, Court below has opined that at the time of commission of oh‘ence the age of the respondent N0. 1 may be below 18 years, Court below has not inquired the matter in detail while passing such order parties'has not tiled the document relating to Kotwari entry or birth cei tillcate or the evidence that entry in school register is not relating to the respondent NO. 1 and is related to any other person and such other material necessary for conclusion. Order impugned is not sustainable under the law but Additional Sessions Judge, Dhamtari has directed to hle charge sheet before the Juvenile Justice Board, therefore the order is partly modified and dnding relating to the age of the respondent NO. 1 is hereby set aside. Juvenile Justice Board is directed to hold the detail inquiry v7, mlating to the age specially to provide an opportunity of adducing thc document of Kotwari entry, birth mgistcr, school entry mgistcr, other evidence necessaxy for aniving at a deEJite @ding mlating to the age of the respondent NO. 1. Parties are djmcted to appear befom the Juvenile " Justice Board, Raipur on 13/ 1/2010 for furtherinquity, peu'tion is disposed of accordingly.