Crl.Rev.No. 2099 of 2009 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision: 1.7.2010 Crl.Rev.No. 2099 of 2009 (O&M) Gurmit Kaur ......Petitioner Versus Prince and another .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M- 16472 of 2010 (O&M) Gurmit Kaur ......Petitioner Versus Prince and another .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. P.S.Ahluwalia, Advocate and Mr.Vikram Chaudhary, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Mr.Arshwinder Singh, DAG, Punjab. **** SABINA, J. Vide this order CRR No. 2099 of 2009 and CRM-M No.16472 of 2010 will be disposed of as the controversy involved in Crl.Rev.No. 2099 of 2009 (O&M) 2 both the cases is same. FIR No.44 dated 28.2.2008 under Sections 302, 392/34 IPC was registered at Police Station, Sadar Hoshiarpur against respondent No.1 Prince and others. Respondent No.1 moved an application that he should be declared a juvenile as his date of birth was 17.7.1991 and he was less than 18 years of age at the time of alleged commission of crime on 29.2.2008. Vide impugned order dated 8.8.2008, the application filed by respondent No.1 was allowed and he was held to be a juvenile at the time of alleged commission of crime by Juvenile Justice Board, Hoshiarpur. Aggrieved by the said order, State, through the present petitioner, filed an appeal and the said appeal was dismissed by Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur vide impugned order dated 30.7.2009. Learned counsel for the petitioner have submitted that no reliance could be placed on the school leaving certificate relied upon by the respondent. Respondent No.1 had himself given his age as 19 years at the time of his arrest. Learned counsel for respondent Prince, on the other hand, has submitted that the respondent had placed reliance on a school leaving certificate, as per which, the date of birth of respondent Prince was 17.7.1991. Prosecution had failed to produce any evidence to the contrary. Moreover, the prosecution had filed the challan against respondent Prince by treating him as a juvenile. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for respondent Crl.Rev.No. 2099 of 2009 (O&M) 3 Prince has also shown the photocopy of fifth standard examination certificate issued by the Education Department, Punjab, as per which the date of birth of respondent Prince was 17.7.1991. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the instant petitions deserve dismissal. In view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the respondents, it cannot be said that the Courts below had committed any error while declaring respondent Prince as a juvenile. No ground for interference is made out. Accordingly, these petitions are dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE July 01, 2010 anita