| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2004 SLG 2899 2004 SLD 2899 2004 PLD 758 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Criminal Petition No. 782-L of 2003, decided on 7th May, 2004. (On appeal from the judgment dated 28-10-2003 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore, in Writ Petition No. 2258 of 2003).
KHALIL-UR-REHTNAN RAMDAY AND FALAK SHER,, JJ
M. Asghar Rokhari, Advocate Supreme Court with Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. Raja Abdul Rehman, A.A.G. for the State. Malik Saeed Hassan, Advocate Supreme Court and Ha_ji M. Rali Siddiqui, Advocate-on-Record for
Respondent
Criminal Petition No. 782-L of 2003, decided on 7th May, 2004. (On appeal from the judgment dated 28-10-2003 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore, in Writ Petition No. 2258 of 2003).
KHALIL-UR-REHTNAN RAMDAY AND FALAK SHER,, JJ
M. Asghar Rokhari, Advocate Supreme Court with Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. Raja Abdul Rehman, A.A.G. for the State. Malik Saeed Hassan, Advocate Supreme Court and Ha_ji M. Rali Siddiqui, Advocate-on-Record for
Respondent
SULTAN AHMED
VS
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGEI, MIANWALI and 2 others
Law:
Section:
(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S. 302---Juvenile Justice System Ordinance (XXII of 2000), S.7--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)---Determination of age of accused---Genuineness of the two certificates produced by the accused before the Trial Court to establish his claim of minority had been seriously questioned by the complainant through documentary evidence and otherwise---Trial Court in such circumstances in order to reach a correct and just decision should have summoned the original record relating to the said two certificates and examined the authors and custodians of the same---In such a situation normal course` for the Trial Court was to have the accused medically examined by a Competent Medical Board to reach a just decision about his age---Reliance of the Trial Court and of the High Court on some entry in the police record to resolve the issue was misconceived as the Investigating Officer had not mentioned the said age of the accused after any proper investigation about the same---Both the Courts below, thus, had erred in reaching the impugned conclusions about the minority of accused which were set aside accordingly and the matter was remanded to the Trial Court for a fresh decision in accordance with the provisions of section 7~of the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000, including a reference to a competent Medical Board for the examination of accused regarding his age. Muhammad Ishaque's case 2002 SCMR 440 and Muhammad Akram's case 2002 PCr.LJ 633 distinguished. (b) Juvenile Justice System Ordinance (XXII of 2000)-- ----S. 7---Determination of age of accused---Guidelines stated--Irrespective of the fact whether the issue of the age of an accused person is or is not raised before the Court, it is the obligation of the Court to suspend all further proceedings in a trial and to hold an inquiry to determine the age of the accused, if and whenever it appears to be necessary---Court should always feel free to requisition the original record, to summon and examine the authors and custodians of such record and documents to determine the genuineness of the same, to summon persons if need be, who, on account of some special knowledge,…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492