' LAL JAN KHATTAK, J.---This criminal revision application is directed against the order dated 28-10- 2013 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-V, D.I. Khan whereby the learned trial Court has ordered to proceed with the case of the respondent-accused under the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent-accused has been named as accused in a case under section 302, P.P.C. Registered at Police Station Cantt., D.I. Khan vide F.I.R. No,1105 dated 15-12- 2012.
3. After completion of the usual investigation the case was put into the court of ordinary jurisdiction for the purpose of trial. However, during proceedings of the case a plea was raised on behalf of the accused regarding his juvenility and a request was made to the Trial court by the learned counsel for the accused to proceed with the case under the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000 instead of proceeding with it as a court of ordinary criminal jurisdiction.
4 The learned trial Court after hearing pro and contra arguments of the counsel for the parties passed an order that in view of the available record on file of the case the accused appears to be juvenile, therefore, his case will be proceeded with under the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000. This order dated 28-10-2013 has been impugned by the complainant in this criminal revision petition.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that without conducting an enquiry qua the age of the respondent-accused the learned trial court has committed an illegality to declare the accused as juvenile. The learned counsel contended that the order impugned be set aside and the case be sent to the court of ordinary jurisdiction for its trial. The learned AAG for the State adopted the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
6. As against the above, learned counsel for the respondent-accused supported the order impugned by the petitioner and contended that from the record it is well-established that the accused is a juvenile and the learned trial Court has rightly declared him as such and to this effect no illegality has been committed by the learned trial Court.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the relevant record.
8. Perusal of record reveals that date of birth of the respondent-accused is 10th June, 1996. This entry of his date of birth is supported by an extract from the register pertaining to school record of the accused. Likewise, on record there is available a "Bay" form from NADRA wherein also date of birth of the accused has been recorded as 10-6-1996. Perusal of the above record shows that the 'Bay' form was issued on 19-8-2006 while in the school record the date of entry of the accused in his school was recorded on 19-4-2001. Both these documents are prior in time than the registration of the instant case which is registered on 15-12-2012, therefore, no finger can be pointed out to term the same as fabricated or procured one in order to avail the benefits of juvenility.
9. Both the aforesaid documents have come from official custody and are much prior in time than the registration of the case against the accused. Moreso, both ,pertains to the critical issue i,e, age of the accused, involved in the case and have direct bearing on it, therefore, there is no reason to doubt them.
10. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the accused has not been ossified to determine his age and that no enquiry as envisaged under section 7 of the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000 has been conducted by the learned trial Court, is untenable on the ground that in view of the authentic academic and NADRA record available on case file pertaining to the age factor of the accused there is no further need to go for another detailed enquiry to determine the age of the accused. Ossification test of an accused about determination of his age would be necessary and relevant only when no authentic and reliable documentary evidence is available about his age. In presence of accurate documentary evidence regarding the age of an accused person hardly there will be a necessity to refer him for his ossification test etc.
11. The learned trial Court in detail has touched upon the extract from the school record pertaining to the age of the accused as well as the record produced from NADRA office. Both the records have come from official source and there is no doubt about their authenticity. Therefore for the above discussion, I hold that the order of learned trial Court to proceed with the case under the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000 does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity, the same is upheld and resultantly this criminal revision is dismissed.