ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, BENCH AT SUKKUR

Cr. Rev. No. S – 87 of 2016

DATE ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE

For hearing of main case

10.12.2018

Mr. Fayaz Ahmed A. Soomro Advocate for the applicants

Mr. Shafi Muhammad Mahar, DPG for the State

>>>>>>>…<<<<<<<

Amjad Ali Sahito, J:- Through instant Criminal Revision Application, the applicants have impugned the order dated 04.06.2016 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge Moro in Sessions Case No.188/2013, re- The State v. Ali Asghar and others arising out of FIR/Crime No.07/2013 of Police station Leghari, District Naushahro Feroze, whereby dismissed the two applications i.e. one under Section 6 of the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance 2000 and another for amending the charge.

2. The facts of the prosecution case succinctly stated in the FIR lodged on 25.03.2013 at 2115 hours by one Muhammad Umar Bhatti at Police Station Leghari are that on the fateful night, he along with his brother Mehwal, son Ali Murad, maternal-uncle Mithal were returning to their village, when at about 09:00 p.m, they were confronted by accused Saeed, Ahsan and Ali Asghar having pistols, tried to rob them, with whom his brother Mithal resisted, on which accused Ali Asghar fired from his pistol upon him which hit on his chest, he fell-down, they raised cries and accused persons escaped away on their motorcycle. Thereafter they (complainant party) went over Mehwal and saw that he had firearm injury on his chest blow the left nipple and was bleeding and dead, while leaving the witnesses over the dead body, he appeared at police station and lodged FIR.

3. That the applicants/accused were minor, therefore, their case was ordered to be tried under Juvenile Justice System Ordinance 2000, therefore, the formal charge was framed in the case. The applicants/accused on 14.5.2016 filed two applications i.e. one for amending the charge, whereas, another under Section 6 of the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance 2000. The learned trial Court after hearing the learned counsel for the parties as well as learned ADPP for the State dismissed both the applications vide common order dated 04.06.2016, hence this revision application.

4. Learned counsel for the applicants/accused contended that the applicants/accused are juvenile, therefore, their case is liable to be tried under the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance 2000, whereas, the learned trial Court is proceeding the case in open Court, where so many other persons, particularly the hardened criminals were present; that the learned trial Court by not proceeding the case as per the procedure provided under Section 6 of the Ordinance has grossly violated the provision of law; that per Juvenile Justice System Ordinance 2000 the cases of the Juvenile Offenders are to be tried / proceeded in camera, whereas, the learned trial Court has proceeding the trial in open Court, therefore, such application was moved by the applicants/accused. He lastly prayed that the impugned order dated 04.6.2016 is liable to be set-aside.

5. On the other hand, learned DPG for the State has vehemently opposed the contentions of learned counsel for the applicants/accused and submitted that the impugned order is proper and does not call for any interference, therefore, he prayed for dismissal of instant revision application.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicants/accused and learned DPG for the State and have gone through the record. The Juvenile Justice System Ordinance 2000 has been promulgated, inter alia, for providing protection to the children involved in criminal litigations and their rehabilitation in society. Perusal of Section 6 of the Ordinance provides that the proceedings of the juvenile Court shall not be published in any newspaper or magazine and at the time of trial no person from the general public shall be present in the Court except certain specified persons. The perusal of application under Section 6 of Juvenile Justice System Ordinance 2000 filed by the learned counsel for the applicants/accused, it appears that no where it is mentioned that the public at large was present in the Court and the learned trial Court has violated the provisions of Section 6 of the Ordinance. Furthermore the trial Court has already declared the applicants as Juvenile Offenders vide order dated 29.05.2014 and thereafter the complainant and P.Ws were examined but the learned counsel for the applicants/accused has not raised any objection for violation of such provisions of Section 6 of the Ordinance, whereas, the filing of application at belated stage is nothing but only to linger on the proceedings of the case. From the perusal of the order, I have not found any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order and while dismissing the applications the learned trial Court has given cogent reasons hence does not call for any interference by this Court. Consequently, the instant Criminal Revision Application being devoid of merits is dismissed.

Judge

ARBROHI