Criminal Miscellaneous No,2 of 2006 ' ASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, J.--- The requirement of filing certified copies of the relevant documents is dispensed with. Disposed of.
Criminal Revision No,979 of 2006
2. The petitioners are accused persons in case F.I.R. No,83 registered at police Station Katha Sagral District Khushab on 14-5-2006 for offences under sections 302/364/201/202, P.P.C., which case is presently being tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khushab. The petitioners submitted an application before the learned trial Court for getting a declaration that they were juveniles and thus, they ought to be tried by a Juvenile Court under the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000 and on 20-7-2006 the learned Sessions Judge, Khushab seized of the trial at that time passed an order directing the Medical Superintendent, District Headquarters Hospital, Khushab to constitute a Medical Board for the purposes of ascertaining the petitioners' ages. After receiving a report in that regard the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khushab then seized of the trial dismissed the above mentioned application of the petitioners, vide order, dated 17-10-2006. Thereafter petitioners filed another application before the learned trial Court seeking reconstitution of the Medical Board and for medical re-examination of the petitioners but that application of the petitioners was also dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khushab vide order, dated 28-10-2006. Hence, the present revision petition before this Court.
3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the impugned order, dated 17- 10-2006 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khushab had proceeded primarily upon a report,of a Radiologist about the bone ages of the petitioners whereas the learned Sessions Judge, Khushab had earlier ordered the petitioners to be examined by a Medical Board but no report of such a Medical Board had been presented before the learned trial Court for consideration.
He has further argued that the school certificates as well as Forms "B" relied upon by the petitioners clearly showed that both the petitioners were below the age of eighteen years at the time of the alleged occurrence and, thus, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khushab was not justified in holding otherwise.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners and going through the documents appended with this revision petition it has 'straightaway been noticed by me that according to the document available at page No,19 of the present file the petitioners had indeed been examined by a Standing Medical Board for the purposes of ascertaining their ages and then their X-Rays were sent to the Medical Superintendent of the relevant hospital for seeking expert opinion of the Radiologist in that regard. This shows that the order, dated 20-7-2006 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Khushab for medical examination of the petitioners by a Medical Board had in fact been complied with. Although the impugned order, dated 17-10-2006 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khushab refers only to a report submitted by the Radiologist yet the fact remains that section 7 of the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000 speaks only of "a medical report" and the same does not mention any Medical Board as such. In this view of the matter consideration of the Radiologist's report by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khushab has appeared to me to be a substantial compliance not only of the relevant law but also of the earlier order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Khushab.
5. The report submitted by the Radiologist before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khushab shows that X-Rays of knees, shoulders and elbows of both the petitioners had been taken and then the bone age of both the petitioners was opined to be about twenty years each. The report of the Radiologist is dated 9-10-2006 whereas the occurrence in this case had taken place on 14-5-2006.
In this view of the matter, it is evident that according to the medical evidence both the petitioners were more than eighteen years of age at the time of the alleged occurrence.
6. Adverting to the school leaving certificate being relied upon by Muhammad Irfan petitioner No,1 it has been noticed by me . That according to said certificate (a copy whereof has been appended with this petition as Annexure "G" at page No,15 of the present file) the said petitioner had been admitted to the relevant school on 21-4-2003 but surprisingly he is shown to have been admitted to the relevant class on 1-4-2004 i.e. After about one year of his admission to the school. This anomaly has appeared to me to be quite un-understandable. The said school leaving certificate further shows that petitioner No,1 had attended the relevant school only for twenty-two days but he had not attended any class even for a single day! I have, thus, remained unable to place any reliance to such a doubtful document. The learned counsel for the petitioners has also relied upon Form "B" submitted by the father of petitioner No,1 before the National Database and Registration Authority, a copy whereof has been appended with this petition at page No,15-A of the present file.
A bare look at the document shows that the same bears no attestation or any official stamp on it so as to vouchsafe its veracity. The learned counsel for the petitioners has further drawn my attention to the document available on the present file at page No,16 thereof which document is a Kindared Roll and names of heirs pertaining to the service of the father of petitioner No,1 in the Pakistan Army. I have gone through the said document and on the face of it an interpolation therein regarding the name of petitioner No,1 is apparent to a naked eye. Apart from that the date of birth of petitioner No,1 mentioned therein is 15-12-1990 whereas in the Form "B" mentioned above the date of birth of petitioner No,1 was mentioned as 15-5-1990. This document has also, therefore, failed to inspire my confidence.
7. According to the school certificate pertaining to Naveed Ahmad petitioner No,2 a copy whereof has been appended with this petition as Annexure "H" at page No,17 of the present file, it has been noticed by me that the date of birth of petitioner No,2 mentioned in the said document is 3-9-1989 whereas the next document being relied upon by the same petitioner, i.e. Form "B" submitted by his father before the National Database and Registration Authority, a copy whereof has been appended with this petition at page No,18 of the present file, shows the date of birth of this petitioner as 3-9-1988. Such divergence in the date of birth of this petitioner recorded in two different documents being relied upon by him has made me quite suspicious in this respect.
8. It has already been observed by me above that the report submitted by the Radiologist had clearly shown that the bone age of both the petitioners was about twenty years. Such medical opinion has not been displaced in the present case by the above mentioned documents being relied upon by the petitioners which documents have been found by me to be utterly unreliable.
9. Apart from what has been observed above no jurisdictional infirmity, illegality of approach, irregularity of procedure or perversity of reasoning on the part of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khushab has been pointed out before this Court so as to warrant an interference in the matter by this Court through exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. This revision petition is, therefore, dismissed in limine.
Criminal Miscellaneous No,1 of 2006
10. As the main revision petition has been dismissed by this Court in limine today, therefore, the present miscellaneous petition seeking interim relief has lost its relevance. Dismissed.