SCMR 2004

2004 PLP 121 (SCMR)

MUHAMMAD ZAKIR — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and another — Respondents

Jurisdiction / Court
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Decided Date
Criminal Petition No.454-L of 2002, decided on 3rd December, 2002.
Honorable Judges
Sh. Riaz Ahmad, C.J. and Karamat Nazir Bhandari, J
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2004 PLP 121 (SCMR)
Forum / Court Supreme Court of Pakistan
Bench Members Sh. Riaz Ahmad, C.J. and Karamat Nazir Bhandari, J
Parties MUHAMMAD ZAKIR — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and another — Respondents
Primary Law Juvenile Justice System Ordinance (XXII of 2000)
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2004 PLP 121 (SCMR)?

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 2004 PLP 121 (SCMR)?

The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Sh. Riaz Ahmad, C.J. and Karamat Nazir Bhandari, J.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 2004 PLP 121 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD ZAKIR — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Juvenile Justice System Ordinance (XXII of 2000)

Representation

  • Q.M. Salim, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Petitioner.
  • Nemo for Respondents.
  • Date of hearing: 3rd December, 2002.

Headnotes / Summary

(On appeal from the judgment, dated 28-5-2002 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore passed in Criminal Revision No.463 of 2002).

Ss. 5 & 7

Penal Code (XLV of 1880), Ss. 302/109/34-- Constitution of Pakistani (1973), Art. 185(3)

Separation of trial-- Determination of age

Ossification test

Accused claimed separation of trial on the ground that at the time of offence his age was less than 18 years

Medical Board, after examination of the accused found him of 20 years of age at the time of examination- --Trial Court declined to separate the trial of the accused

Plea raised by the accused was that Trial Court had placed reliance on ossification test and had ignored Birth Certificate and School Leaving Certificate

Validity

High Court had rightly dismissed the revision petition filed by the accused against the order of Trial Court

Leave to appeal was refused.

Judgment & Decree

SH. RIAZ AHMAD, C.J.

Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment, dated 28-5-2002 passed in Criminal Revision No.463 of 2002 whereby a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court dismissed Criminal Revision filed by the petitioner.

2. Facts giving rise to this case are that the petitioner is an accused in the case F.I.R. No. 322 registered on 27-8-2000 under sections 302/109/34, P.P.C. The petitioner filed an application praying for separation of his trial and sending the same to the Court constituted under the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000 claiming himself as a minor. The learned trial Court held that the petitioner is minor and ordered for separation of his trial.

3. The complainant filed Criminal Revision No.59 of 2000 before the Lahore High Court which was allowed and the order, dated 12-11-2001 was set aside with the direction to get the opinion of Medical Board to determine the age of the petitioner. The Medical Board vide its report, dated 19-3-2002 held that the petitioner was of 20 years of age at the time of medical examination, therefore, in pursuance of the report or Medical Board the trial Court held that there is no need to conduct separate proceedings for the petitioner. The petitioner assailed the above order before the High Court in Civil Revision No.463 of 2002 which is impugned before this Court.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the petitioner was less than 18 years of age at the time of occurrence according to the birth certificate produced by the petitioner. He further stated that the trial Court had placed explicit reliance on the ossification test report and has totally ignored, the documents i.e. Birth Certificate and School Leaving Certificate.

5. In view of the matter we are of the opinion that the High Court has rightly dismissed the revision petition and no interference is called for by this Court. The petition is dismissed. Leave declined. M.H./M-831/S Petition dismissed.