PESHAWAR, Oct 2: The Peshawar High Court has recommended to the federal government to redefine the word child in the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance (JJSO), 2000, so as to bring different sections of the law in conformity with each other.

A single bench of the high court suggested that "child" shall be redefined in the Ordinance which should be "a person who at the time of commencement of his trial has not attained the age of 18 years".

Presently, in section 2(b) of the Ordinance, the child has been defined as a person who at the time of commission of an offence has not attained the age of 18 years.

The bench comprising Justice Tariq Pervez put forward the suggestions in a criminal revision petition filed against an order of the additional district and sessions judge, Peshawar. The case was decided on Sep 24.

In the detailed judgment the bench observed that the suggested definition would be in consonance and harmony, both with the preamble of the Ordinance and different sections of the Ordinance.

The bench directed that the copy of this judgment should be sent by the Registrar of the high court to the Ministry of Law, Parliamentary Affairs, Human Rights, Islamabad for the perusal of the federal law secretary and a copy should also be sent to Dr Faqir Hussain, secretary of Law and Justice Commission.

According to facts of the case, an FIR was registered on Oct 12, 1995, at police station Yakatoot, peshawar, in which Azizur Rehman was charged by Naseerullah Khan for the commission of intentional murder.

On Sep 9, 2003, the additional district and sessions judge by pressing into service the provisions of JJSO held that according to school-leaving certificate the date of birth of the accused, Azizur Rehman, was April 4, 1979, thus he was below 18 at the time of the commission of the offence and would be considered a child.

Aggrieved from that order of the trial court, the complainant Naseerullah filed the criminal revision petition, requesting the high court to set aside the order of the trial court as the accused was no longer a child.

The petitioner's counsel Ishtiaq Ibraheem contended that the definition of child should be applicable prospectively and should not be given retrospective effect. He added that even if it was not disputed that at the time of the commission of the offence the accused was a child, but when the accused was put to trial he had already attained the age of 18 years, therefore his trial under the JJSO would be illegal.

The bench observed that in view of the provisions of the law, child was differently treated and proceeded against during the trial under the Ordinance. The court referred to a judgment of the Supreme Court and observed that the accused had been rightly ordered to be tried under the Ordinance.

The court observed that going by the preamble of the Ordinance read with different provisions the object of the promulgation of the ordinance was to provide protection to the "children" involved in litigation and their rehabilitation in society and when there was provision for Borstal Institution for children offenders where they were to be detained and given training for their mental, moral and psychological development.

The bench added that under section 3 of the Ordinance a "child" was entitled to legal assistance and to be tried separately, the definition as given in the Ordinance would, therefore, required to be suitable amended.