P L D 2001 Lahore 479 (PLP)
MUHAMMAD ASLAM‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE and others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | P L D 2001 Lahore 479 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | Mian Muhammad Najam‑uz‑Zaman, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ASLAM‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE and others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 2001 Lahore 479 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 2001 Lahore 479 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: Mian Muhammad Najam‑uz‑Zaman, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 2001 Lahore 479 (PLP) (MUHAMMAD ASLAM‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE and others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Umair Mohsin for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 302‑‑‑Juvenile Justice System Ordinance (XXII of 2000), S.4(3)‑‑ Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.439‑‑‑Exclusive jurisdiction of Juvenile Court‑‑-Sessions Judge had declined to transfer the case of the accused to the Juvenile Court on the ground that accused according to the medical report being 18 years of age was not a "child" as defined in S.2(b) of the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000‑‑‑Two Medical Boards had unanimously observed that the age of the accused was 18 years on the day of examination and when calculated he was found to be about 16‑1/2 years of age on the day of occurrence‑‑‑Case of accused, thus, fell within the definition of "child" of the said Ordinance‑‑‑Impugned order of the Sessions Judge was consequently set aside and the case of accused was directed to be sent to the Juvenile Court concerned for further proceedings‑‑‑Revision petition was allowed accordingly. Muhammad Rafique Rajpoot for the State.
Judgment & Decree
2. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lodhran vide order dated 27‑2‑2001, referred the matter to Sessions Judge, Lodhran for appropriate order, who on the same day, referred the matter back to the concerned Additional Sessions Judge with the observation that "according to the Medical Report, accused is 18 years of age, therefore, he is not a child as defined in section 2(b) of the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance of 2000". Through this criminal revision, the order of Sessions Judge, Lodhran has been assailed.
3. Heard. File perused.
4. To resolve the controversy, reproduction of the relevant sections of Juvenile Justice System Ordinance of 2000 is essential, which read as follows:‑‑ "Section
2. Definition.‑‑(b) 'Child' means a person who at the time of commission of an offence has not attained the age of eighteen 'years.' Section
4. Juvenile Courts.‑‑(3) 'The Juvenile Court shall have the exclusive jurisdiction to try cases in which a child is accused of commission of an offence.' Section 7
Determination of age.‑‑If a question arises as to whether a person before it is a child for the purposes of this Ordinance, the Juvenile Court shall record a finding after such inquiry which shall include a medical report for determination of the age of the child'. " To determine the age of the petitioner, two Medical Boards were constituted, both of them unanimously observed that the age of the petitioner was 18 years on the day of examination i.e. 7‑2‑2001 and 13‑3‑2001. To bring the case of a person within the fold of this Ordinance, as stated in the definition of child (i.e. section 2(b) of the ibid Ordinance) it is to be established that the person/accused‑ was less than eighteen years of age at the time of occurrence. In this view of the matter, if calculated, on the day of occurrence i.e. 3‑9‑1999 the petitioner was about 16‑1/2 years of age and his 8 case falls within the definition of child of the ibid Ordinance. The order of Sessions Judge, Lodhran dated 27‑2‑2001 is not sustainable and the same is set aside. The record of this case shall be sent to the concerned Juvenile Court for further proceedings.
5. With the above observation, the instant revision petition stands disposed of. N.H.Q./M‑577/L Revision petition allowed.