2016 PLP 789 (MLD)

MUHAMMAD TARIQ ABBASI, J.

By way of this revision petition, the order dated 09.9.2014, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dera Ghazi Khan has been called in question, whereby during inquiry under section 7 of the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000, to determine age of Muhammad Aqib petitioner, his examination through the Provincial Standing Medical Board has been directed.

2. The precise facts, leading to filing of the instant revision petition are that the petitioner alongwith his co-accused (Abdul Rehman) is facing trial in case FIR No. 58 dated 25.2.2014 registered under sections 302/34, P.P.C. at Police Station Saddar Dera Ghazi Khan. He filed an application before the learned trial court, contending therein that he was a juvenile, hence his case was proceedable, under the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000. The learned Sessions Judge, Dera Ghazi Khan/trial court, carried on the inquiry proceedings as required under Section 7 of the Ordinance (ibid); school leaving certificate and birth certificate of the petitioner was tendered in the learned trial court; the medical examination of the petitioner, was also directed; he was examined by the District Medical Board and his age was opined as 15 to 17 years. The learned trial court, for further satisfaction, directed examination of the petitioner, through the Provincial Standing Medical Board. The said order has aggrieved the petitioner, hence he through the instant criminal revision has approached this court.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that when towards age of the petitioner, sufficient material, in shape of documentary evidence was available before the learned trial court, there was no need to direct examination of the petitioner, through the Provincial Standing Medical Board, hence the impugned order dated 09.9.2014 was not acceptable under the law and as such liable to be set-aside.

4. The arguments have been heard and the record has been perused.

5. It is a well settled principle of law that when during a trial, an accused claims himself to be minor, then the proceedings as required under the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000 should be carried on. In the said proceedings, first step is determination of age of the accused, as provided under section 7 of the Ordinance (ibid). For convenience the said section is reproduced herein below:-- "Determination of Age.

If a question arises as to whether a person before it is a child for the purpose 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." Under the above mentioned provision, for determination of age of an accused, who claims himself to be a minor an inquiry by the court has been provided, which should include a medical report.

6. The court, for its satisfaction may conduct and carry on any permissible proceeding, which according to it is necessary to reach at just and fair conclusion. No limit of such proceeding could be prescribed or determined. For the said proceeding/inquiry, the court may go to any extent. In this regard reliance may be made to the cases reported as "Sultan Ahmed v. Additional Sessions Judge-I Mianwali and 2 others (PLD 2004 Supreme Court 758) and Niaz Muhammad v. Umar Ali and another (2009 PCr.LJ 91)." The relevant portion of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, referred above, is reproduced herein under:-- "The word "INQUIRY" is defined by clause (k) of sub-section (1) of section 4 of the Cr.P.C. but the said definition is not exhaustive. Various kinds of inquiries are envisaged by the Code of Criminal Procedure e.g. the one ordained by section 117 thereof. We know it by now from the judicial precedents that the purpose of holding an inquiry, amongst others, is to determine the existence or non-existence of a fact or the falsity or correctness thereof and further that an inquiry is a judicial proceeding in which evidence could be legally taken. Therefore, whenever a Court is confronted with the question of the age of an accused person, it is incumbent upon it to hold an inquiry and the learned Presiding Officers should always feel free to requisition the original record; to summon and examine the authors and the custodians of such record and documents to determine the genuineness of the same; to summon person, if need be, who on account of some special knowledge, could depose about the age of the concerned accused person and to take such other and further steps which could help the Court in reaching a just conclusion about the said matter."

7. In the case in hand, although birth Certificate and school leaving certificate, as well as report of the District Medical Board is available before the learned trial court but when it has considered the said documents to be insufficient for reaching at just and fair conclusion, has directed, examination of the petitioner, through the Provincial Standing Medical Board. When for medico-legal work, the said board has been established and constituted as third tier, then its utilization, for the purpose of determination of age could not be termed objectionable or strange as alleged by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

8. For what has been discussed above, the revision petition in hand, being devoid of any force and merit, is dismissed. HBT/M-362/L Petition dismissed.