' MUHAMMAD RAZA KHAN, J.---The petitioners Irfanullah and Imranullah, along with their co- accused, are facing trial in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Lakki Marwat under sections 302/324/34, P.P.C. Vide F.I.R. No.106 dated 18-5-2003 Police Station, Naurang. During the trial, an application was moved for declaring the accused as juvenile but the learned trial Court, vide order dated 13-9:2005, rejected the said application on the personal observation that "the accused do not appear to be under age and they might be 21 and 23 years old". This order has been challenged through this criminal revision.
2. Arguments heard.
3. The Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000 provides, in section 7, that "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 shat include a medical report for the determination of age of child". The said Ordinance provides for a separate mechanism for the trial of juveniles. Special Courts have been constituted, or empowered, under section 4 of the said Ordinance and special trial has to be conducted of such accused under section 5 of the Ordinance. Special procedure has to be followed as per section 6 of the Ordinance and while recording the judgment, the provision contained in clause (a) of section 12 of the Ordinance has to be kept in mind. Therefore, in view of the said statutory provisions, an entirely different mechanism to be put in motion in the case of juvenile, therefore, it has been made obligatory for the Court to get a medical report for the determination of the age of the child. Even otherwise, if the trial is concluded, there will be further complications on remand of the matter and bifurcation of the case of the accused if it was proved that on the day of occurrence, the accused or anyone of them had not attained the age of eighteen years as per clause (b) of section 2 of the Ordinance. The school leaving certificates of both the petitioners, prima facie, indicate their age to be 13 and 14 years on the date of occurrence.
However, it can be further verified from the scientific means of ossification test etc.
4. Thus, this criminal revision is allowed, the impugned order dated 13-9-2005 is set aside and the learned trial Court is advised to refer the matter to the Medical Board for the determination of age of the petitioners and thereafter proceed in accordance with law.