sIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.408 of 2008 AWNI KANT son of Gopal Singh, resident of village Barka Gaon,P.S.pakaridayal, East Champaran. …petitioner Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR …opposite party For the petitioner : Mr.Binod Kumar Mishra For the State : Mr.J.Upadhyay, APP ----------- 03. 06.08.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. Petitioner claims himself to be juvenile. According to him, his date of birth is 05.02.1987. He is facing charge(s) punishable under diverse section of the Penal Code including 307 IPC. in relation to an occurrence that had taken place on 03.10.2003 which gave rise Trial No.2488/07 of the court of learned SDJM,Sikarhana, Motihari. Apart from the present case, petitioner was also made accused in Pakridayal P.S.Case No.33/03 instituted under diverse section of the Penal Code including section 307 IPC. The said case was lodged with regard to an occurrence committed on 26.05.2003. It appears that the petitioner made a claim for being declared juvenile in the said case which had given rise to Trial No.1241/07. The matter was enquired into in terms of the provisions contained in Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) and a finding was recorded therein on 07.06.2007 (Annexure-4), whereby he was found and declared a juvenile. In the present case, an application was filed on 8.01.2008 (Annexure-2) for declaring him juvenile in terms of the adjudication already made by a competent - 2 - court but in connection with different case. The said application of the petitioner was considered and rejected by order dated 12.02.2008 passed in Trial No.2488/07. This is the order which has been made impugned in the present case. Learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the legality of the order, submits that reasonings assigned by learned court below is ex facie contrary to law and the facts appearing from the record. Once such a claim is raised, the court in seisin of the matter has to consider the same in terms of the provisions contained in the Act and then a finding is to be recorded. Learned counsel submits that in the present case there was no need of any enquiry as in a different matter the claim of the petitioner has already been upheld and he was declared juvenile by a competent court. It is thus the contention of the petitioner that order impugned passed by learned court below needs to be interfered with and set aside. Learned counsel for the State, looking at the documents placed along with the present application, is not in a position to dispute the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and after going through materials on record, this Court is satisfied that the order impugned is not in accordance with law. Once an application has been filed claiming the juvenility the court has to deal with the said application in terms of the provisions contained in the Act and thereafter pass an appropriate order in - 3 - accordance with law. For the reasons aforementioned, the application is allowed. The order dated 12.02.2008 is quashed and set aside. Let the court below pass a fresh order in accordance with law on the application (Annexure-2) filed by the petitioner hr ( Kishore K. Mandal )