' Nazeer Ahmad, the petitioner has brought the instant revision petition calling in question the order, dated 22-7-2003 recorded by Ch. Muhammad lqbal Naru, learned Sessions Judge, Lodhran, whereby he has held that the respondents Nos.2 and 3/accused were less than 18 years of age at the time of the alleged incident i,e, on 7-12-2002 and he with the same directed the learned District Attorney to prepare separate challan against them for their trial separately than the other accused in the case.
2. Briefly the facts relevant for the disposal of the same are that the petitioner has got registered the case F.I.R. No,411, dated 7-12-2002 under sections 302/34/109, P.P.C. With Police Station Saddar Dunyanpur, District Lodhran. Respondents Nos.2 and 3, in the same are nominated accused. The allegation against them is that on 7-12-2002 at about 4-30 p.m. They and their co-accused Nasir in furtherance of their common intention at the instance of one Shahbaz had committed the Qatle- Amd of his deceased father Muhammad Nawaz. They all three were challaned to Court in the same. Respondents Nos.2 and 3 made application for determination of their age. It was pointed by their side out that they were less than 18 years of age at the time of the alleged incident and so they are to be tried separately than their co-accused as per the Scheme of Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000. So, the matter was referred to the Medical Board. The Medical Board declared respondent No,2 Muhammad Iqbal to be about 17 years of age and respondent No,3 Muhammad Mumtaz to be about- 16 years old. The learned Sessions Judge, Lodhran held further inquiry 'into the matter. He thereafter held that they were less than 18 years of the time of the alleged incident i,e, on 7-12-2002. He with the same, directed the learned District Attorney to prepare separate challan against them for their trial separately than their co-accused Nasir.
3. The petitioner feeling aggrieved of that order has come to this Court with this revision petition.
4. It has been contended on his behalf that there is ample proof brought on record to show that at least the respondent No,2 Muhammad lqbal was above 18 years of age at the time of the alleged incident but the learned Sessions Judge has proceeded to ignore the same erroneously and relied upon the report of the Medical Board in the matter and concluded that the age of these two respondents was less than 18 years at the time of the alleged incident and so the impugned order is not sustainable in law and the same is liable to be struck down and trial of these respondents may be ordered to be held alongwith their co-accused Nasir by an ordinary Court. In this regard reliance has been placed upon the case of Muhammad Akram v. Muhammad Haleem 2002 PCr.LJ 633 (Lahore):
5. I have carefully considered submissions made on his behalf and gone into the copies of the documents annexed to the petition.
6. The plea of respondents Nos.2 and 3 is that they were less than 18 years of age at the time of alleged incident i,e, 7-12-2002. As stated above, the learned Sessions Judge had held inquiry into the matter. The petitioner produced the birth entry of respondent No,2 Muhammad lqbal to show that he was more than eighteen years of age at the relevant time. He has observed about the same that there is interpolation with that entry in the record. It may be mentioned here that the learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of his submissions has submitted that he has no grievance as regards the finding of the learned Sessions Judge, in respect of the age of respondent No,3 Muhammad Mumtaz. However, he has disputed the age of respondent No,2 Muhammad Iqbal.
7. According to section 7 of the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000:- "Determination of age.--- If a question arises as to whether a person before it is a child for the purpose of this Ordinance, the Juvenile Court shall record a finding after such inquiry which shall include a medical report for determination of the age of the child."
' Now there had been a dispute about the age of respondent No,2 Muhammad lqbal. According to the said provision of the Ordinance, an inquiry is required in respect of such dispute. In such an eventuality, the matter is to be referred to the Medical Board for determination of age of a child.
8. The matter as stated above was referred to the Medical Board by the learned Sessions Judge, Lodhran. It was rightly so and in accord with the said provision of the Ordinance. The Medical Board has clearly opined that the age of respondent No,2 Muhammad Iqbal is about 17 years and that of respondent No,3 Muhammad Mumtaz about 16 years. The Medical Board was comprising of Dr. Muhammad Aslam Sheikh, Consultant Surgeon, Dr. Muhammad Ashraf, Dental Surgeon and Dr. Muhammad Sadiq, Medical Superintendent, D.H.Q. Hospital, Lodhran. In the circumstances, the birth entry of respondent No,2 Muhammad Iqbal was not reliable. The medical opinion in respect of their ages was more preferable and reliable than that entry. Hence, the learned Sessions Judge had not erred in law in holding their ages to be less than 18 years at the time of the alleged incident and directing their separate trial than their co-accused.
9. In these circumstances, the case-law referred to above by his (petitioner) side is not at all applicable to the case in hand. The impugned order, therefore, calls for no interference by this Court in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. The revision petition, therefore, has no force. The same is dismissed as such in limine. 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.