Case Details

Citation(s)
2010 SLG 2809 2010 SLD 2809 2010 PCRLJ 441
Sindh High Court
Criminal Revisions Applications Nos. 169, 172, 173 of 2009, decision Date : 9th January, 2010.
MUSHIR ALAM, JUSTICE, MUNIB AKHTAR, JUSTICE
Mushtaq Ahmed for Applicant. Khadim Hussain, D.P.G. NAB for the State.

FARHAN AHMED HASHMI ALIAS CHOTTA--Applicant

VS

THE State

Law: Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000

Section: 5,7

Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)

Section: 302

Juvenile Justice System Ordinance (XXII of 2000)---.--- ---.---Ss.5 & 7---.---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302---.---Qatl-i-amd---.---Application for trial before Juvenile Court on plea of accused being minor---.---Dismissal of application---.---Police Surgeon examined the petitioner in order to determine age of accused and concluded that accused was between 18 and 19 years old and certified his findings by means of the age certificate---.---Petitioner did not challenge said findings of the Police Surgeon; however he filed application again before the Anti-Terrorism Court that he being minor should be tried before the Juvenile Court---.---Said application was also dismissed---.---Validity---.---Held, onus of establishing minority lay on the person who raised such a claim and it was incumbent on the applicant to have produced all the evidence favourable to him or on which he sought to place reliance at the stage when he himself had raised the plea of his minority---.---Accused could have produced his birth certificate at that time and also supported the same by means of other evidence, but no such material or evidence was produced at the relevant time and he did not challenge the finding recorded in the age certificate issued by the Police Surgeon---.---It was only after the passage of more than 2 years that accused sought to re-agitate the issue of his minority---.---In the present case petitioner was medically examined at his own instance and chose neither to challenge the age certificate issued by the Police Surgeon nor to produce any evidence in his support including the birth certificate, which had been presented at a belated stage---.---Accused was not entitled to re-agitate on issue which had already been decided against him---.---No ground had been raised which could justify interference with the impugned order made by the Anti-Terrorism Court. Muhammad Aslam v. State PLD 2009 SC 777; Sultan Ahmed v. Additional Sessions Judge-I PLD 2004 SC 758; Nazeer v. State PLD 2007 SC 202; Sajjad Ahmad v. State 2006 PCr.LJ 211; Tauseef v. State PLD 2009 Lah. 535; Papoo v. State 1999 YLR 691 and Yousuf v. State 1975 PCr.LJ 936 ref. THIS ORDER PASSED BY: MUNIB…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

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