' TARIQ SHAMIM, The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner who is an accused in case F.I.R.
No,568 of 2005, registered under section 302, P.P.C. At Police Station Ferozewala, District Sheikhupura for the murder of Nisar Ahmed, the brother of the complainant/respondent No,2 moved an application before the trial Court for the determination of his age claiming to be a juvenile at the time of occurrence. On the orders of the learned trial Court a Medical Board was constituted which in its report dated 30-6-2005 opined that the age of the petitioner, as on 27-6- 2006 was about 17/18 years. However, the learned trial Court despite receipt of the report of the Medical Board vide the impugned order instead of deciding the question of juvenility or otherwise of the petitioner ordered recording of prosecution evidence and the issue of juvenility was postponed to be decided at the time of final adjudication of the trial.
2. Notice was issued to respondent No,2, however, he is not in attendance. Ex parte proceedings are ordered against him.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the course adopted by the learned Court was contrary to the law. The learned Additional Advocate-General does not oppose the stand taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
4. The impugned order, dated 8-7-2006 reveals that despite finding given by the Special Medical Board, Services Hospital, Lahore vide Report No,M.S.3450/SH, dated 30-6-2006 to the effect that the age of the petitioner accused as on 27-6-2006 was 17/18 years, the learned trial Court through the impugned order proceeded to record the prosecution evidence without first deciding the question of juvenility or otherwise of the petitioner. The course adopted by the learned trial Court is contrary to the law as the issue regarding juvenility or otherwise of the accused has to be determined first before proceeding with the trial. The Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Sultan Ahmad v. Additional Sessions Judge-I, Mianwali and 2 others PLD 2004 SC 758 has held:-- "To conclude, therefore, it is stated that irrespective of the facts whether the issue of the age of an accused person is or is not raised before the Court, it is the obligation of the learned Presiding.
Officer to suspend all further proceedings in a trial and to hold an inquiry to determine the age of an accused person if and whenever it appears to him that such a determination was necessary."
5. For what has been discussed above, this petition is accepted and the order, dated 8th of July, 2006 is set aside. The trial Court is directed to decide the question of juvenility or otherwise of the petitioner first and then to proceed with the case.