The Supreme Court while dealing with a Special Leave Petition filed by Mohammad Abdullah Azam Khan, a Samajwadi Party leader and former MLA, challenging the Allahabad High Court's order that dismissed Khan's application to stay his conviction under Sections 353/341 IPC and Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, directed the Moradabad District Judge to determine whether Khan was a juvenile at the time of the offence.

In February 2023, Mohammad Abdullah Azam Khan was convicted in a 15-year-old case, resulting in his disqualification as an MLA. Khan had argued before the High Court that on the date of the incident, he was a minor. However, the trial court proceeded with the entire trial, treating him as an adult, which he contended was done illegally.

The Bench of Justice A.S. Bopanna and Justice M.M. Sundresh ordered, "Considering that the correct date of birth of the Petitioner is relevant for ultimate consideration of the issues raised and to decide the juvenility appropriate finding is necessary on that aspect. Hence, the question relating to the correct date of birth of the Petitioner is referred to Learned District Judge, Moradabad who shall provide opportunities to the parties to render a finding on this aspect in accordance with the procedure and send the finding to this Court for further consideration in the matter."

The Court also noted, "The concern expressed by the learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner with regard to the proceedings in relation to the date of birth need not be adverted to at this stage. Since, in any event, we have sought for a report from the Court concerned and this aspect may be brought to the Court concerned for seeking necessary relief therein pending consideration of these Petitions."

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, representing Khan, argued that Khan's mother and the doctor who delivered him state that he was born on a particular date, whereas the Election Commission and the State claim that he was born on a different date. On the other hand, Additional Solicitor General K.M. Natraj, representing the State, submitted that the issue of juvenility should have been decided by a board under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. ASG also pointed out that this issue was never raised during the original trial court proceedings but was brought up only in the appellate stage.

Khan's primary argument before the High Court was that on the date of the incident, January 2, 2008, he was a minor. However, the trial court erroneously proceeded with the trial treating him as an adult. Consequently, he contends that the entire trial is flawed, and he requests a stay on his conviction until the appeal is disposed of. Furthermore, Khan's second submission revolves around a recent judgment by the Supreme Court where he was declared a 'minor'.

The High Court had in its order noted that the said plea is also wholly unsustainable and has no legs to stand. "During the course of trial, the applicant has never claimed himself to be a minor by moving an application for the same as held by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vimal Chaddha Vs. Vikas Chaudhary and Another reported in (2008) AIR SCW 4259, and as such, since the applicant has not been held to be a minor, therefore, the trial against him rightly proceeded as an adult along with the other coaccused and he has rightly been convicted and sentenced. By no stretch of imagination, the trial on this ground can be said to be vitiated and his conviction be stayed till the disposal of the appeal", read the order.

Cause Title: Mohammad Abdullah Azam Khan v. The State Of Uttar Pradesh [Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 5216/2023]

Justice AS BopannaJustice MM Sundresh

Ramey Krishan Rana