2008 PLP 499 (YLR)

ASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, J.

The petitioner is the complainant of case F.I.R. No.12, registered at Police Station Ganda Singh Wala, District Kasur on 22-1-2005 in respect of offences under sections 302/324/148/149/109, P.P.C. which case is presently being tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kasur. On 6-10-2006 the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kasur had declared Syed Faheem Sarwar and Syed Naeem Sarwar accused as juveniles to be tried by a Juvenile Court under the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000.

2. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned Additional Sessions Judge Kasur had decided the matter of juvenility of the above mentioned accused persons on the basis of an opinion of a Special Medical Board which opinion had been obtained at the stage of bail whereas the matter of juvenility of an accused person can lawfully be decided only during a trial.

3. The occurrence in this case had taken place on 22-1-2005 and the document appended with this revision petition as Annexure-E shows that the above-mentioned accused persons had been medically examined by a Special Medical Board on 9-9-2005 and the Board had found that Syed Faheem Sarwar accused was about eighteen years of age and Syed Naeem Sarwar accused was about seventeen years of age. Such opinion regarding the ages of the said accused persons had been rendered by the Board on the basis of physical, radiological and dental examination of the said accused persons. The petitioner is not possessed of any material/evidence to even suggest that the said opinion given by the Special Medical Board about the ages of the relevant accused persons was incorrect or unreliable. The provisions of section 7 of the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000 show that no stage has been mentioned therein at which an inquiry about the age of any accused person is to be conducted for the purposes of declaring him a juvenile or otherwise.

4. The impugned order had been passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kasur on 6-10-2006 whereas the petitioner has preferred the present revision petition before this Court on 5-3-2007. The order-sheet of the learned Trial Court appended with the present revision petition shows that the petitioner has remained associated with the proceedings before the learned Trial Court at all the relevant stages and, thus, he was fully aware of passage of the impugned order on 6-10-2006. In these circumstances the indolence shown by the petitioner in approaching this Court stands unexplained.

5. Apart from what has been observed above no jurisdictional infirmity, illegality of approach irregularity of procedure or perversity of reasoning on the part of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kasur has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner so, as to warrant an interference in the matter by this Court at such a stage. It, however, goes without saying that if and when the petitioner is in possession of some material/evidence establishing incorrectness or unreliability of the medical opinion regarding the ages of the above-mentioned accused persons then the petitioner may approach the learned Trail Court for a fresh determination of the ages of the said accused persons, if so advised.

6. For what has been discussed above no occasion has been found by me for interference in the matter at the present juncture and this revision petition is disposed of with the observations made above. Criminal Miscellaneous No.01 of 2007.

7. As the main revision petition has been disposed of by this Court today, therefore, the present miscellaneous petition seeking interim relief has lost its relevance. Disposed of. H.B.T./A-196/L Order accordingly.