' This is a revision petition against the order dated 25-10-2003 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Multan whereby he has dismissed the application of the petitioners for transfer of case to the Court constituted under the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners are accused in case F.I.R. No.14 of 1991, dated 13-1- 1991 registered at Police Station, New Multan with the allegatipn that they had abducted Muhammad Ihsan-ud-Din for ransom and then murdered him. They were firstly tried by the Court of a Special Judge and convicted under section 365, P.P.C. But as the said Court had no jurisdiction to decide the case under section 302, P.P.C., hence, fresh trial is being conducted before the learned trial Court and same was challenged in writ petition which was dismissed by this Court.
Then an application was moved by the petitioners before the learned trial Court claiming that they were less than 18 years of age at the time of commission of offence and prayed for transfer of their case to the Court constituted under the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000, which has been dismissed through the impugned order. Hence, this revision petition: 3 & 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that as defined in the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000 any person less than 18 years of age at the time of commission of occurrence is to be treated "child" and petitioner No.1, Muhammad Imran Khalid has produced his matriculation certificate while petitioners Nos.2 to 4 have produced their School Leaving Certificate to prove them less than 18 years of age at the time of commission of offence, hence, their trial is liable to be conducted by the Court constituted under Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000. It is further contended that under section 3(4) of the said Ordinance trial of-a "Juvenile" can only be conducted by the Court constituted under this Ordinance exclusively and under sect!. .1 4(4) -all the cases already pending before the ordinary Courts, in which, a child is accused have to be transferred to the said Courts.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents opposes this petition on the ground that the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in ljaz Hussain's case 2002 SCM R 1455 has held that Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000 will not be applicable to the cases wherein the occurrence had taken place before the promulgation of the said Ordinance. It is further contended that the trial by -the Special Court cannot be claimed as of right by those accused, who had committed the offence before the promulgation of the said Ordinance. Also relies upon 2003 PCr.LJ 1212 in support of his contentions. It is further contended that the petitioners Naveed Baig, Muhammad Fayyaz and Gul Muhammad had placed on record only School Leaving Certificates, which are not worthy of reliance. It is further contended that the said plea has been raised by them at a belated stage which is not acceptable in the absence of any solid proof. It is also contended that the petitioners have committed a heinous offence and the order of.Learned trial Court is sustainable.
6. The learned State counsel has also opposed this petition.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the impugned order alongwith other documents. Admittedly the occurrence had taken place in the year 1991 (about nine years before the promulgation of Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000). In ljaz Hussain's ease 2002 SCM R 1455 the occurrence had taken place in the year 1995 and the appellant was sentenced to death. The Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the appellant could not claim lesser punishment provided under Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000, merely on the ground of tender age as it was not applicable to the said case, and declined the request of the appellant for conducting inquiry to declare him a juvenile. However, sentence of death was altered on some other ground.
8. I am of the view that it is misunderstood that the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000, has been promulgated only to award lesser punishment to the accused of minor age. In fact the purpose for enactment of this Ordinance after perusal of the same read with Rules framed in the year 2002 appears to be that the accused of tender age should be saved from the humiliation of jail, who being at the age of learning may also not be-mixed up with other criminals in jail and they may be made useful citizens of the country in their future life. To achieve this purpose the Special Courts have been set up for early disposal of cases wherein child is an accused. Here the petitioners have admittedly crossed the age of child provided in the definition clause of this Ordinance. Therefore, they cannot be benefited by the promulgation of this Ordinance as such, even if they are declared juvenile except that capital punishment may not be imposed upon them.
It is generally noticed that even before promulgation of this Ordinance the Courts normally did not award capital punishment to the accused of youth age but while imposing the punishment the circumstances in which the occurrence had taken place are always kept in view.
9. In this case in support of their version that they were less than 18 years of age at the time of occurrence, Naveed Baig, Muhammad Fayyaz and Gul Muhammad petitioners have placed on record the copies of their School Leaving Certificates,' according to which Naveed Baig petitioner No.2 remained in the school for five months, Muhammad Fayyaz petitioner No.3 remained in the school for only eight months and Gul Muhammad petitioner No.4 had been admitted in school for 21 days. Muhammad Iraran Khalid petitioner No.1 has also, placed on record only copy of matriculation certificate. The petitioners had filed this application for declaring them, juvenile with unreasonable delay even after promulgation of this Ordinance. I do not want to comment upon the genuineness or otherwise of the documents relied upon by the petitioners in support of their plea at this stage so that opinion of this Court may not prejudice the case of either party at the trial as the petitioners can produce evidence at the trial to prove their age and the learned trial Court will be at liberty to decide the same in either way.
10. For the foregoing discussion, I do not find it a fit case for the transfer of case to the Court constituted under the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000. The learned counsel for the petitioners has failed to point any illegality or jurisdictional defect in the impugned order which is maintained and this revision petition is dismissed.