' This petition is directed against the order, dated 14-7-2003, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chunian whereby, he directed the S.H.O. Concerned to submit a separate challan against Sarfraz accused under Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000 till 19-7-2003.
2. Brief facts of the case are that case F.I.R. No, 80 of 2002, dated 25-3-2002, was registered against respondent No,2, Sarfraz and his co-accused under sections 302/324/148/149/337-A(ii), 337- F(ii), P.P.C. At Police Station, Changa Manga, Tehsil Chunian, Distt. Kasur. Respondent No,2 submitted an application before learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chunian that he is under 18 years of age and be tried separately under the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000. He produced birth certificate of concerned Union Council and school leaving certificate to show that his age is less than 18 years. Learned counsel for the complainant asserted that the accused is major and his application be dismissed.
' After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the learned trial Court accepted his application through impugned order on the ground that both the certificates produced by him indicate that he was not an adult on the day of occurrence.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he was busy in the High Court on 14-7-2003 and in his absence the application was accepted without providing him an opportunity to rebut the certificates relied upon by Sarfraz accused. He further argues that medical examination of the accused was necessary to determine his age as contemplated by section 7 of the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000 and without his medical examination the finding of the trial Court that he was less than 18 years of age is illegal.
4. Mr. Tasawar Hussain Qureshi, Advocate, learned counsel for respondent No,2, on the other hand, relying upon the case of Muhammad Akram v. Muhammad Haleem (2002 PCr.LJ 633) contends that both the documents placed on the record were of unimpeachable character. The trial Court felt satisfied about the age of the accused, therefore, considered it unnecessary to get him medically examined for determination of his age. The course adopted by the trial Court cannot be held to be illegal as observed by this Court in the afore-referred judgment. He further argues that the complainant has not produced any counter-document to. Dispute the veracity of birth certificate of respondent No,2 or school leaving certificate. In the absence of any rebuttal or any allegation of being their fakes, his medical examination was not required. He supported the impugned order in the light of aforesaid submissions.
5. Heard. Record perused. Even if the submission of petitioner is considered that he was not heard on 14-7-2003 to rebut the school leaving and birth certificates of respondent No,2, he could produce any counter-certificate to rebut the veracity of the said documents. He has not attached any other school leaving certificate or birth certificate to show that the date of birth of the accused was other than as mentioned in the said documents. The impugned order was passed on 14-7- 2003, whereas revision petition was filed about 12 days thereafter i.e, on 26-7-2003. There is no other material on the record except the aforesaid documents. According to birth certificate he was born on 2-5-1985, and the entry was made in the record of Union Council on the next day, which indicates that he was 17 years, 10 months and 23 days on the day of occurrence. Similarly in the school leaving certificate his date of birth, is, shown as 7-6-1987, meaning thereby that he was about 16 years of age. Both these documents conclusively prove that respondent No,2 was below 18 years of age on the day of occurrence.
6. The impugned order shows that the application was contested by the complainant. His objection that the impugned order was passed without hearing him is belied by the record. It is true that learned counsel for the petitioner was present in this Court on 14-7-2003 in Criminal Miscellaneous No, 3357/B of 2003 but he could attend the Court at Chunian after conducting the case in this Court. Even if he has no opportunity to contest the application before trial Court he could append any document to show that respondent No,2 was above 18 years of age. As stated earlier neither he has produced any school leaving certificate nor birth certificate to _contradict the aforesaid certificates. The documents relied by learned Additional Sessions Judge are sufficient for his inquiry under section 7 of the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000. In the case of Muhammad Akram v. Muhammad Haleem (2002 PCr.LJ 633), referred by learned counsel for the respondent, it was held that ossification test could only give a clue as to the age but could not be a conclusive proof.
Such exercise had to be resorted only when there was no other proof available, like school leaving certificate or birth certificate and the Court was in a quandary about the age of accused. If the trial Court is satisfied by the material placed before it, the medical examination for determination of his age can be dispensed with. It is settled law that a genuine birth certificate duly recorded in birth register of Union Council is preferred over all other modes of evidence for determining the age of a person. The trial Court has examined the register of concerned Union Council but found no cutting or tampering with the record and gave the finding that the entry was genuine and made on next day of his birth. The finding of trial Court is based on proper appreciation of evidence qua age of respondent No,2. The impugned order, for the reasons stated above, does not suffer from any legal error warranting interference by this Court. The petition has no merit and is dismissed. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.