2006 P Cr (PLP)
AHMAD SHER — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2006 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | AHMAD SHER — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Juvenile Justice System Ordinance (XXII of 2000) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Juvenile Justice System Ordinance (XXII of 2000) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2006 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2006 P Cr (PLP) (AHMAD SHER — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mushtaq Ahmad Mohal for Petitioner.
- Syed Khalid Hassan Shah for Respondent.
- 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2 opposed this petition half-heartedly and submitted that as the school leaving certificate is genuine and was not objected by the petitioner before the trial Court, therefore, the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge is correct and legal. He further submitted that respondent No.2 is ready to have ossification test as contemplated in Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000.
- 6. A bare perusal of section would show that the provisions of having a medical report is mandatory in nature. So, it was obligatory for the trial Court to have a medical report to determine the age of the accused for the purposes of Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000, I am, thus, fully convinced that the trial Court erred in not getting a report from the Medical Board of D.H.Q. for determination of the age of the accused/respondents. Even otherwise, learned counsel for respondent No.2 has submitted that respondent No.2 is willing to have an ossification test as contemplated in the Ordinance. In these circumstances, order, dated 28-3-2006 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sargodha is set aside and case is remitted back for decision afresh in accordance with law, after having a report from Medical Board of District Headquarter Hospital with regard to the age of the accused/respondent No.2.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 7
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.439
Determination Justice System Ordinance, 2000, provisions of having a medical report was mandatory in nature and it was obligatory for the Trial Court to have a medical report to determine the age of accused for the purposes of Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000
Trial Court, in circumstances, was not justified in not getting a report from Medical Board for determination of age of accused, especially when accused was willing to have an ossification test as contemplated in Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000
Order passed by Trial Court was set aside and case was remitted for decision afresh, in accordance with law after having a report from Medical Board with regard to age of accused.
Judgment & Decree
SYED SAJJAD HUSSAIN SHAH, J.
Petitioner Ahmad Sher through the instant petition has challenged the order dated 28-3-2006 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sargodha whereby he accepted the petition moved by respondent No.2 and declared him juvenile and directed the S.H.O. for submission of separate challan.
2. It is contended that according to section 7 of the Justice Juvenile System Ordinance, 2000, it was mandatory upon the trial Court to have ossification test of respondent No.2-accused and thereafter could only form its opinion about the age of said respondent.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2 opposed this petition half-heartedly and submitted that as the school leaving certificate is genuine and was not objected by the petitioner before the trial Court, therefore, the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge is correct and legal. He further submitted that respondent No.2 is ready to have ossification test as contemplated in Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. Section 7 of the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000 is reproduced hereunder:-- "If a question arises as to whether a person before it is a child for the purpose of this Ordinance, Juvenile Court shall record a fin ding after such inquiry which shall include a medical report for determination of the age of the child."
6. A bare perusal of section would show that the provisions of having a medical report is mandatory in nature. So, it was obligatory for the trial Court to have a medical report to determine the age of the accused for the purposes of Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000, I am, thus, fully convinced that the trial Court erred in not getting a report from the Medical Board of D.H.Q. for determination of the age of the accused/respondents. Even otherwise, learned counsel for respondent No.2 has submitted that respondent No.2 is willing to have an ossification test as contemplated in the Ordinance. In these circumstances, order, dated 28-3-2006 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sargodha is set aside and case is remitted back for decision afresh in accordance with law, after having a report from Medical Board of District Headquarter Hospital with regard to the age of the accused/respondent No.2.
7. This revision is allowed in the above terms. H.B.T./A-111/L?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Case remanded.