2001 P Cr (PLP)

Muhatrmad Jamil and others v. The State 2000 YLR 231 ref. Azizullah, K. Shaikh for Appellant. Habib Ahmed, A.A.‑G. for the State. Date of hearing: 13drFebruary, 2001. GHULAM NABI SOOMRO, J.‑‑‑ Through this appeal, the appellant Sajjid Ali has assailed his conviction and sentence under section 377, P.P.C., to suffer R.I for 10 years and pay tine of Rs.20,000 plus sentence of 7 years' R.I and fine of Rs.20,000 (Rupees twenty thousand only) under section 7(i)(b) and (ii) of Anti‑Terrorism Act, 1997, by Anti -Terrorism Court, Sukkur vide its judgment, dated 29‑2‑2000.

2. Mr. Azizullah K. Shaikh, learned counsel for the appellant at the outset raised a legal plea relating to the jurisdiction of the trial Court and the trial of the appellant. He contended that the appellant at the time of incident was aged 14 years and 7 months only. Such documents in proof of appellant's age were submitted in trial Court and an application for proper trial of the appellant was also submitted, which was later withdrawn by his counsel. Learned counsel contended that even the trial Court has shown the appellant to be aged about 14/15 years. He urged that even today the appellant was below 16 years of age. It was argued that the trial Court has not dealt with this important aspect of the case. It was further urged that 'issue of age involved a legal question, which having been brought to the Court's notice once, could not have been omitted from the consideration and had to be dealt with appropriately. It was vehemently urged that the case of the appellant was covered by the Sindh Children Act. Reference was made to 2000 YLR 231 (Muhammad Jamil and others v. The State). He, therefore, prayed that the impugned judgment be set aside and case be remanded for fresh decision treating the convict as minor.

2. The above contentions have not been controverted by the learned A.A.‑G. He has consented to the prayer.

3. We have perused the impugned judgment, para. No.37, whereof is relevant to the contentions raised above and have perused the appellant's statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. and the documents (Age Certificates) tiled therewith. The question of age in the given facts certainly needed examination and consideration. Once the question of age was raised before the trial Court, touching the jurisdiction of the Court, such question ought not to have been lightly placed aside by allowing prayer of withdrawal.

4. In the aforesaid circumstances, we would set aside the conviction and sentence passed against the appellant and remand the case for fresh i.e. decision in accordance with the law, after determining the question of age of the convict‑appellant. N.H.Q./S‑82/K Case remanded.