2001 PLP 3096 (YLR)
MUHAMMAD RIAZ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE and another‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 2001 PLP 3096 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Zafar Pasha Chaudhary, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD RIAZ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE and another‑‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2001 PLP 3096 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2001 PLP 3096 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Zafar Pasha Chaudhary, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2001 PLP 3096 (YLR) (MUHAMMAD RIAZ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE and another‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Ch. Muhammad Ashraf Wahla for Petitioner.
- Zafar Iqbal Chouhan for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 10th October, 2001.
- The learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab, has cited the case of Ahmed Khan v. The State and another (2000 PCr.LI 1985) from Sindh High Court. The import of the principle laid down in the precedent case is that if there is some doubt with regard to age of juvenile, the same should be decided in favour of the juvenile accused because the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000, has been enacted to provide a protection to the juveniles because capital punishment cannot be imposed on them. According to learned Additional Advocate‑General, because Ordinance is beneficial enactment, therefore, benefit should be extended to the juvenile and not to the complainant. According to learned counsel for the petitioner if there was some dispute with regard to jurisdiction of Court then it should lean towards the Court which has plenary jurisdiction which obviously is Court of Sessions. On the force of that arguments, notice was issued to the learned Additional Advocate‑General. He has appeared in response to notice and concedes that whenever a Court with special jurisdiction is created, then normally the Court of plenary jurisdiction should have jurisdiction but in case of doubt a beneficial enactment has to be interpreted in favour of the beneficiary. Following this principle when the facts of the instant case are taken into consideration it is found that no finding with regard to age of the accused was arrived at. However, on the basis of the available data the probability that the accused was less than 18 cannot be ruled out. In such an event where there is more probability of an offender being less than 18 years then the Court should tilt in favour of the accused and he should be tried by the Special Court constituted under the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000. The learned trial Court considering that the age of the offender appears to be less than 18 years at the time of occurrence, therefore, assumption of jurisdiction by the Juvenile Court cannot be held to be illegal. The impugned order as such does not suffer from any illegality. This revision petition is, therefore, dismissed.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Ss.302/324/148/149‑‑‑Juvenile Justice System Ordinance (XXII of 2000), S.4‑‑ Assumption of jurisdiction by Juvenile Court‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑No finding with regard to age of the accused was arrived at‑‑‑On the basis of the available data the probability of the accused being less than 18 years could not be ruled out and he, therefore, should have been tried by the Special Court constituted under the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000‑‑‑Trial Court considering that the age of the accused appeared to be less than 18 years at the time of occurrence had rightly concluded that the accused be tried under the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000‑‑‑Impunged order did not suffer from any illegality and the same was upheld accordingly. Ahmed Khan v. The State and another 2000 PCr.L1 1985 ref. (b) Juvenile Justice System Ordinance (XXII of 2000)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S.4‑‑‑Age of accused‑‑‑Where there is more probability of an offender being less than 18 years of age Court should tilt in his favour and he should be tried by the Special Court constituted under the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑‑Ss.302/324/148/149‑‑‑Juvenile Justice System Ordinance (XXII of 2000), S.4‑‑ Assumption of jurisdiction by Juvenile Court‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑No finding with regard to age of the accused was arrived at‑‑‑On the basis of the available data the probability of the accused being less than 18 years could not be ruled out and he, therefore, should have been tried by the Special Court constituted under the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000‑‑‑Trial Court considering that the age of the accused appeared to be less than 18 years at the time of occurrence had rightly concluded that the accused be tried under the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000‑‑‑Impunged order did not suffer from any illegality and the same was upheld accordingly. Ahmed Khan v. The State and another 2000 PCr.L1 1985 ref. (b) Juvenile Justice System Ordinance (XXII of 2000)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S.4‑‑‑Age of accused‑‑‑Where there is more probability of an offender being less than 18 years of age Court should tilt in his favour and he should be tried by the Special Court constituted under the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000. Ch. Muhammad Ashraf Wahla for Petitioner. Zafar Iqbal Chouhan for Respondent. Date of hearing: 10th October, 2001. The learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab, has cited the case of Ahmed Khan v. The State and another (2000 PCr.LI 1985) from Sindh High Court. The import of the principle laid down in the precedent case is that if there is some doubt with regard to age of juvenile, the same should be decided in favour of the juvenile accused because the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000, has been enacted to provide a protection to the juveniles because capital punishment cannot be imposed on them. According to learned Additional Advocate‑General, because Ordinance is beneficial enactment, therefore, benefit should be extended to the juvenile and not to the complainant. According to learned counsel for the petitioner if there was some dispute with regard to jurisdiction of Court then it should lean towards the Court which has plenary jurisdiction which obviously is Court of Sessions. On the force of that arguments, notice was issued to the learned Additional Advocate‑General. He has appeared in response to notice and concedes that whenever a Court with special jurisdiction is created, then normally the Court of plenary jurisdiction should have jurisdiction but in case of doubt a beneficial enactment has to be interpreted in favour of the beneficiary. Following this principle when the facts of the instant case are taken into consideration it is found that no finding with regard to age of the accused was arrived at. However, on the basis of the available data the probability that the accused was less than 18 cannot be ruled out. In such an event where there is more probability of an offender being less than 18 years then the Court should tilt in favour of the accused and he should be tried by the Special Court constituted under the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000. The learned trial Court considering that the age of the offender appears to be less than 18 years at the time of occurrence, therefore, assumption of jurisdiction by the Juvenile Court cannot be held to be illegal. The impugned order as such does not suffer from any illegality. This revision petition is, therefore, dismissed. N.H.Q./M‑842/L Revision dismissed.