Chandan Kumar @ Chandan Paswan and ors. Vs. State of Bihar

.....at the stage of section 313 of cr.pc observed that petitioners were major at the time of occurrence - no illegality in impugned order - application dismissed. - [g.s. singhvi, chandramauli kr. prasad, jj.] - the judges (inquiry) act, 1968 section 3 -- after the motion was admitted, the chairman of the rajya sabha (hereinafter referred to as, the chairman ) constituted a committee comprising mr. justice v.s. sirpurkar, judge, supreme court of india, mr. justice a.r. dave, the then chief justice of andhra pradesh high court and respondent no.3. in the meanwhile, mr. justice a.r. dave, chief justice of the andhra pradesh high court, was transferred to the bombay high court and was then elevated as judge of this court and in his place mr. justice j.s. khehar, chief justice of the uttarakhand high court was included in the committee. in september, 2010, mr. justice aftab alam, judge, supreme court of india was appointed as presiding officer because mr. justice v.s. sirpurkar recused from the committee. it is a travesty of justice that the judges inquiry committee has been so constituted with the same shri p.p. rao as a sitting member of the said committee. this is opposed to all principles of justice and rule of law. from the letter it was evident that following justice dave's elevation, the committee was re-constituted and justice j.s. khehar, who at that time was chief justice of the uttarakhand high court was brought on the committee in his place. the letter went on to say that the committee consisting of hon'ble mr. justice v.s. sirpurkar, judge, supreme court of india, hon'ble mr. justice j.s. khehar, chief justice of uttarakhand high court and shri p.p. rao, senior advocate, was examining the notice of motion. investigation into misbehaviour or incapacity of judge by committee.- one shall be chosen from among the chief justices and other judges of the supreme court; report of committee.- one shall be chosen from among the chief justice and..........dated 5.1.2009 father of the petitioner no. 1 chandan kumar @ chandan paswan has sworn affidavit that his date of birth is 19.2.1999 and as such he is minor. the mother of the petitioner no. 2, dharmraj kumar @ dharmraj paswan similarly filed affidavit dated 5.1.2009 stating that his date of birth is 25.2.1992. the mother of petitioner no. 3, pankaj kumar @ pankaj paswan has similarly stated on oath that his date of birth is 15.1.1993. as such, vide annexure- a series the parents of the petitioners have stated that on the date of occurrence their sons, petitioners herein, were minors.6. heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. the learned sessions judge in his detailed order observed that the age recorded at stage of 313 of cr.p.c. would show that the petitioners were major at the time of occurrence. in course of the statement recorded under section 313 of cr.p.c., the petitioners themselves, chandan kumar @ chandan paswan stated that his age is 25 years and pankaj kumar @ pankaj paswan stated that he is of 24 years and dharmraj kumar @ dharmraj paswan stated that he is of 26 years. he has further observed in his order that the certificate produced by the petitioners do not seem to be genuine and furthermore these are not matriculation certificate. in view of the aforesaid circumstances learned sessions judge has rejected their prayer to declare them juvenile.7. as such i do not find any illegality in the impugned order and this revision application is, accordingly, dismissed.