AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R.K. Nehru, J.
The petitioner alongwith others is being tried by the Court of Sessions, Ferozepur under Sections 364/27/302/377/34 IPC. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that at the time of the commission of the alleged offence, he was a minor below 16 years and as such, he could only be tried by the Junenile Court, so set up for this purpose. In the present case, it is evident from the bail order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur dated 15.6.1990 that he was allowed bail for the reasons that as per his Matriculation certificate, he was below 16 years of age and as per his Matriculation certificate, he was below 16 years of age and as per medical examination, he was about 14 or 141/2 years. Under Sections 7(2) and 8 of the Juvenile Justice Act, it is the Juvenile Court, which is to determine the age of the accusedperson claiming to be a minor below 16 years. In the present case, admittedly, this has not been done. It is well settled law as held by the Apex Court in Gopi Nath Ghosh v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1984 SC 237 that such a matter can be raised even for first time in appeal. Accordingly, this petition is disposed of in the terms that the Juvenile Court shall determine the age of the petitioner according to the provisions of the said Act. Till then, the proceedings against the petitioner in the Court of Sessions are stayed.
JUDGMENT accordingly.