Mahendra @ Raja vs The State of Madhya Pradesh

Sushil Harkauli, Acting Chief Justice

Shri Anand Nayak, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Amit Pande, learned Panel Lawyer for the State. I have heard both sides.

The applicantaccused in this revision was facing trial under sections 363, 366, 376 and 506/34 IPC. He moved an application before the Magistrate claiming that on the date of the incident, i.e., 24/25-7-2007

he was a juvenile. The Magistrate conducted an enquiry and after detailed enquiry recorded the finding by order dated 30-7-2007 holding that the applicant was not juvenile on the date of the incident. Thereafter, an application was moved before the Sessions Judge during the sessions trial to the same effect. The learned Sessions Judge by the impugned order dated 25-9-2007 rejected the application on the ground that a detailed enquiry has already been conducted by the Magistrate and order has been passed holding that the applicant was not a juvenile on the date of the incident, and a repetition of the same enquiry by recording same evidence again did not seem to be desirable.

Learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon Section 7(1) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. According to him, whenever an application is moved by an accused claiming to be a juvenile, the Court before which the application is moved, must conduct an enquiry and proceed only thereafter.

In the present case it was not mentioned before the Sessions Judge that how the enquiry conducted by the Magistrate or the order passed Magistrate on 30-7-2007 could be faulted.

I am not inclined to accept such interpretation of section 7A. Once the accused has moved an application claiming to be a juvenile and the Magistrate, after conducting an enquiry, has recorded a finding that the accused was not a juvenile, thereafter if successive applications to the same effect are permitted to be moved by the accused in appeal before the Sessions Court, thereafter in revision before the High Court and again even in SLP before the Supreme Court, and each of the said Courts are held to be bound to record the same evidence and conduct same enquiry and record their own findings again and again about the alleged juvenility before the proceeding in appeal, revision or SLP, as the case may be, it would be subversive of the judicial process and could be misused as dilatory tactics.

In the circumstance, I am not inclined to interfere in this revision, which is accordingly dismissed. The interim order which has stayed the proceedings of the Court below for the past four years, is vacated.