HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No:1832 OF 2010 ORDER: This revision is directed against the order dated 23.8.2010 in Crl.M.P.No.529 of 2010 in S.C.No.65 of 2010 on the file of the I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, whereby the 2nd respondent-1st accused is treated as juvenile. The petitioner herein is the brother of the victim/deceased. On the basis of a report given by Mohd. Saleemuddin, the Mangalhat police registered a case in crime No.386 of 2008 against the 2nd respondent and nine others for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 324, 307, 302 r/w 149 of IPC and Section 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act. After completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was filed under Section 173 of Cr.P.C. against all the accused including the 2nd respondent for the said offence and after committal, the same was numbered as S.C.No.65 of 2010 and the 2nd respondent is facing trial. While so, stating that he is less than 18 years and he is juvenile and as such he shall be tried only by a juvenile Court, but not a regular Court, the 2nd respondent filed Crl.M.P.No.529 of 2010 under Section 7(a) of Juvenile Justice Act, 2000 seeking to declare him as a juvenile. The I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge having accepted the said submission declared the 2nd respondent as a juvenile and split up the case against him and directed the police to file a charge sheet against him before a competent Juvenile Court. As stated supra, the same is questioned in this revision. This Court ordered notice and though the 2nd respondent was served with notice he has not chosen to put in his appearance. In those circumstances, this Court directed the learned Public Prosecutor to get instructions and accordingly, the learned Public Prosecutor received the instructions and submitted the same. It is mainly contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the 2nd respondent is not juvenile and he is more than 18 years. To establish the said fact, the learned Counsel has drawn my attention to a compromise entered into between the 2nd respondent and the deceased on 25.6.2005 wherein the 2nd respondent is shown as more than 18 years. From a perusal of the order impugned in this revision and also the other material on record, this Court is of the view that the 2nd respondent cannot be treated as juvenile. In the said compromise deed produced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, it is clearly mentioned that the 2nd respondent is more than 18 years even by 25.6.2005. Further as per the medical board, to which the 2nd respondent was referred, he is aged 20 years on the date of examination viz., on 4.8.2010. The date of offence is dated 13.12.2008 and even if the said margin of two years as provided for under Section 12 (3)(b) of Juvenile Justice Rules, is given the 2nd respondent shall be aged 18 years. As per the instructions received by the learned Public Prosecutor, the 2nd respondent, who is the 1st accused in the said Sessions case, is a rowdy sheeter of Mangalhat P.S., and there are so many cases pending against him. The gist of the said cases reads as follows: 1. Cr.No.453 of 2006, under Section 302 IPC of Madhapur P.S., wherein the 2nd respondent was acquitted; 2. Cr.No.158 of 2007, under Section 25(1)(a) of Arms Act of Mangalhat P.S., which is pending; 3. Cr.No.309 of 2007, under Section 307 r/w 34 IPC & 25(1) of Arms Act of Shainatgunj P.S., wherein the 2nd respondent was acquitted; 4. Cr.No.168 of 2008, under Sections 324, 506 r/w 34 IPC of Mangalhat P.S., wherein the matter was compromised in Lok Adalat; 5. Cr.No.684 of 2008 under Sections 147, 148, 364, 365, 307, 384, 342 r/w 149 IPC of Banjara Hills P.S., which is pending; and 6. Cr.No.345 of 2008 under section 324 IPC of Mangalhat P.S., wherein the matter was compromised in Lok Adalat. From the above details furnished by the concerned police, it is clear that the 2nd respondent is habitual offender, rowdy sheeter and involved in a number of cases. In the light of the above discussion, this Court is of the view that the 2nd respondent cannot be treated as juvenile to be tried only by a juvenile Court. Hence, the order dated 23rd August, 2010 passed by the I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad is hereby set aside and the learned Sessions Judge is hereby directed to try the 2nd respondent also in Sessions Case No.65 of 2010 along with the other accused. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed. __________________________ Justice Gopala Krishna Tamada Dated: 7.2.2011 Nn HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No:1832 OF 2010 7.2.2011