Juvenile Justice | Only JJB And Not Trial Court Has Power To Determine Juvenility U/S 94: Madhya Pradesh High Court

Setting aside the order passed by the lower court whereby it had rejected the application moved by the Petitioner/accused to refer his matter to the Juvenile Justice Board, the bench comprising of Justice S.K. Singh observed-

Trial Court was not having power to determine the age of the applicant and this power is vested only with the JJ Board constituted under the Act of 2015. Therefore, it is apparent that the impugned order was not passed following the provisions of the Act, of 2015. Hence, the same is liable to be set aside.

Facts of the case were that the Petitioner was accused of offences punishable under Section 8 and 15 of NDPS Act. Claiming to be a juvenile, he moved an application under Section 94 of JJ Act before the trial court, praying for referring the matter to Juvenile Justice Board for determination of his age as well as for his trial. However, his application was rejected on the grounds that the documents produced by him to prove his age were doubtful and conflicting. Aggrieved, the Petitioner moved the High Court.

The Petitioner submitted that the jurisdiction for determination of his age lies exclusively with the Juvenile Justice Board and that trial court had committed jurisdictional error in dismissing his application.

Per contra, the State argued that as per the record it was clear that the Petitioner was a major at the time of the incident. Hence, it was submitted that the trial court had rightly rejected the application concerned.

Examining the submissions of parties and documents on record, the Court dissected the provisions under Section 94 of JJ Act and reiterated the recourse to be taken by the Juvenile Justice Board to determine the age of the accused so as to clear its doubts. The Court further went on to analyse the decisions of the Apex Court on the subject matter to conclude that the approach at the stage of directing an inquiry has to be more liberal lest, there is miscarriage of justice.

Scrutinizing the decision of the Supreme Court in Rishipal Singh Solanki v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the Court opined that the observations in the said judgment were squarely applicable to the case of the Petitioner-

In the instant case, application claiming juvenility was filed before the Court, therefore, this matter falls under the category of 32(iia) and (iib) i.e. sub clause 2 and 3 of Section 94 of the Act of 2015 in the case of Rishipal Singh Solanki(supra) would be applied. Applicant in support of his juvenility produced school scholar register entry. Therefore, it can be said that he has discharged the initial burden, although the said presumption is however not conclusive proof of age of his juvenility and the same may be rebutted. But on the basis of documents produced by the applicant, presumption of juvenility may be applied in the matter as rightly held in the case of Indra Singh(supra) cited by learned counsel for the applicant.

With the aforesaid observations, the Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the lower court for reconsideration of application filed by the Petitioner under Section 94 of JJ Act and for passing appropriate order as per its provisions, in accordance with law.

Case Title: SHRIRAM RAWAT versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 194

Click Here To Read/Download Order