http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

CASE NO.: Special Leave Petition (crl.)  2892 of 2007

PETITIONER: Arun Kumar

RESPONDENT: The State of Bihar and Anr

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 19/02/2008

BENCH: Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT & P. SATHASIVAM

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.              OF 2008 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.2892 of 2007)

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

1.      Leave granted.

2.      Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a  learned Single Judge of the Patna High Court quashing the  order passed by learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track  Court Vth, Shekhpura. By the said order the learned  Additional Sessions Judge held that respondent No.2-Munna  Kumar was not juvenile and, therefore, there was no need to  refer his case to the Juvenile Justice Board for ascertaining of  his age and, then for trial. It was observed by the High Court  that the prayer was rejected only on the ground that two or  three witnesses were examined and though the accused was in  possession of School Leaving Certificate, mark sheet etc. to  show that he was a juvenile, the prayer could not have been  rejected.  The High Court in a very cryptic manner observed  that the application of the accused deserved to be allowed and  directed the court below to consider the accused as a juvenile  and to proceed accordingly.      

3.      Learned counsel for the informant submitted that the  documents produced had been analysed by the trial Court and  it was categorically held that at the time of framing charge on  observation it was noticed that he was major without any  doubt. In the certificate filed his name was disclosed to be  Priyatam Bihari though all through his name was stated to be  Munna Kumar. Learned Single Judge of the High Court did  not even consider as to how the conclusions of the trial Court  suffered from any infirmity. Merely referring to the stand of the  accused and even without analyzing the correctness or  otherwise of the observations and conclusions made by the  trial Court he came to hold that the accused was a juvenile.  Additionally, the complainant was a party before the High  Court but no notice was issued. There is no appearance on  behalf of respondent No.2-accused.  

4.      Learned counsel for the State supported the stand of the  informant.

5.      The High Court has failed to notice several relevant  factors.  Firstly, at the time of framing charges, the age of the  accused was recorded as major.  Similarly, the difference in

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

names in the documents has not been explained by the  accused.         

6.      Further, as rightly contended by learned counsel for  appellant, no discussion has been made as to how the  conclusions of the trial Court suffered from any infirmity.

7.      Finally, no notice was issued to the appellant before the  mater was disposed of.

8.      Above being the position, the impugned order of the High  Court is set aside and the matter is remitted to it to consider  the matter afresh and pass a reasoned order in accordance  with law.  

9.      The appeal is allowed.