2005 PLP 101 (YLR)
MUHAMMAD SHAFI — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD ISLAM and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2005 PLP 101 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Ch. Iftikhar Hussain, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD SHAFI — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD ISLAM and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2005 PLP 101 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2005 PLP 101 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Ch. Iftikhar Hussain, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2005 PLP 101 (YLR) (MUHAMMAD SHAFI — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD ISLAM and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Malik Muhammad Imtiaz Mahl for Petitioner.
- Hasnat Ahmad Khan for Respondent No. 1.
- Sh. Mumtaz Ali for Respondent No.2/The State.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 302
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 439
Juvenile Justice System Ordinance (XXII of 2000), S. 2(b)
Claim of accused that he was child within the meaning assigned to the words in the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000, had been disputed by petitioner/ complainant
Petitioner/complainant had produced birth entry of accused according to which accused was more than 18 years of age at the time of alleged incident
Trial Court relying on report of Medical Board declared accused to be Juvenile at the time of occurrence and dismissed application of complainant for summoning of record of Form of accused from National Registration Office concerned
Accused had claimed that opinion of Medical Board was more preferable than the birth record for determining the question of juvenility of accused
Trial Court taking into consideration report of Medical Board observed that accused was child, but had not considered birth entry of accused produced by complainant
Trial Court was required to give finding about acceptability or otherwise of birth entry of the accused, but it had not done so
Question of age of accused having been resolved without taking into consideration birth entry of accused, order of Trial 'Court was liable to be interfered with
Order of Trial Court was set aside in revision with direction to Trial Court to decide matter regarding age of accused afresh in the light of material produced by parties before it in accordance with law.
Judgment & Decree
3. The learned trial Court in order to resolve the dispute regarding his age had held an inquiry into the matter. It has sought for the report of the Medical Board for the purpose. The petitioner during the same produced birth entry of the respondent No.
1. According to the same, his date of birth is 6-12-1984. It mentioned that he as per his birth entry was more than 18 years of age at the time of the alleged incident.
4. The learned Sessions Judge, relied upon the medical evidence in respect of his age and declared him to be the juvenile.
5. The petitioner feeling himself aggrieved of the same has come up with the instant petition.
6. It has been argued on his behalf that the birth record of the respondent No.1 was mere preferable than the medical opinion in respect of his age; that despite the fact that the petitioner has brought an application for summoning of record-of Form of the respondent No.1 from the National Registration Office concerned before the learned Sessions Judge for the purpose but he did not consider it properly and so erred in dismissing his such application and declaring the respondent No. 1 to be the juvenile.
7. As against the same, the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 has supported the impugned order saying that medical opinion is more preferable than the birth record for determining the question of juvenility of an accused and so the learned Sessions Judge has not at all erred in placing reliance upon the medical opinion on the question of age of the respondent No. 1.
8. I have carefully considered the submissions made by both the parties with the help of the available record.
9. The dispute as regards the age of respondent No. 1/accused has arisen in the case. He claims to be a juvenile within the meaning assigned to the word in Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000. The petitioner has disputed his such claim. The learned Sessions Judge in order to resolve the controversy has called for report of the Medical Board. The petitioner has produced the copy of the birth entry of the respondent No.1 before him. According to the same, he was more than 18 years of age at the time of the alleged incident.
10. The learned Sessions Judge relied upon the medical opinion in this matter. According to the opinion of the Medical Board, the age of the respondent No.1/accused is 16/17 years. On the basis of which, the learned Sessions Judge has observed that he is the child. He with the same did not feel the necessity to call for the record of the Form from the National Registration Office in respect of respondent No.1 for the purpose. The fact remains that the learned Sessions Judge was required to give finding about the acceptability or otherwise of the birth entry of the respondent No.1. He but has not done so.
11. The said question has not been effectively resolved in the case without the same. The impugned order, therefore, is liable to be interfered with.
12. I, therefore, accept this revision petition. Set aside the impugned order with the direction to the learned Sessions Judge to decide afresh the question of the age of the respondent No.1 in the light of the material/proof produced by the parties before him in accordance with law. Revision accepted accordingly. H.B.T./M-627/L