IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1668 of 2009 Ranju Devi daughter of Umesh Singh, resident of Eroo, P.S.- Wazirganj, Distt. Gaya. … Petitioner. Versus State Of Bihar … Opp. Party. ---------- 2. 23.11.2011 Heard Mr. Basant Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Indu Bala Pandey, learned APP for the State assisted by Mr. Ramashish learned counsel for the informant. This application under Section 53 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) has been filed against the order dated 7.9.2009 passed by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Gaya in Sessions Trial No. 683 of 2009 by which the petition dated 14.2.2008 filed by the petitioner for separating his trial under the Act has been refused. The petitioner is facing trial in the aforesaid case arising out of Wazirganj P. S. Case No. 119 of 1995 under Sections 363, 366 A/34 I.P.C. The claim of the petitioner is that she was a minor at the first glance and she was sent to after care home by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate who had been pleased to 2 take cognizance and the case was transferred to the Court of sessions. She was also granted bail on the basis of the school leaving certificate in which her date of birth was shown as 21.8.1979. The petitioner moved before the learned Additional Sessions for separating her trial by filing a petition dated 14.2.2008 which was opposed by the informant who brought a different certificate granted by the Headmaster, Primary School, Aroo, wazirganj Gaya showing her date of birth as 11.5.1976. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned trial court has not held the enquiry in accordance with Rule 12(3) of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules 2007 by which the guidelines have been given to the Court or the Board or the Committee, as the case may be. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner is also entitled to raise the matter of juvenility before any Court at any time in view of Section 7 A of the Act. Learned counsel for the State assisted by learned counsel for the informant submits that the petitioner cannot take advantage of wrong done by her which has been 3 refuted by the learned counsel for the petitioner as the petitioner being a minor cannot make any interpolation or giving a different date in the school register at the time of admission. After hearing learned counsel for both the parties and on perusal of the impugned order it appears that the impugned order has not been passed in view of the provision/guidelines given in 12(3) of the aforesaid Rules. Considering the facts and circumstances, in my opinion, the impugned order is not fit to be sustained. The impugned order is set aside. The petitioner is at liberty to file a fresh petition under Section 7 A of the Act. If such a petition is filed, the learned trial court will consider it and dispose of in view of the provisions contained in Rule 12 (3) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children ) Rules, 2007 read with Section 7 A of the Act. With the aforesaid direction and observation, this revision application stands disposed of. Kanchan (Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)