IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.93 of 2009 RANJEET KUMAR YADAV @ RANJEET RAI …PETITIONER Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. RAMAYAN RAI …OPPOSITE PARTIES For the petitioner : Mr. Vijay Kumar & : Mrs.Rajani Kumari For the State : Mr. Ram Chandra Singh,APP ----------- 02. 01.09.2010 Heard counsel for the parties. Petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 23.10.2008, whereby learned trial court(FTC Vth, Saran at Chapra) considered the application of the petitioner filed for declaring him juvenile on the date of occurrence, i.e. 07.09.2004 and rejected the same on the ground that initially the petitioner was produced in court on 05.06.2005 when his age was assessed as 22 years by learned Magistrate which was never objected to. Such claim was made on the basis of the school leaving certificate which was found issued a day prior to filing of the application, i.e. on 08.09.2008. Learned trial court has thus found that there is no need of any medical report for assessment of age of the accused/petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the provision of law contained in Juvenile Justice(Care and Protection of Children) Act (for short the ‘Act’) as interpreted by different orders of the Supreme Court, an accused may raise such plea at any stage of the proceeding. It is contended that 2 once a plea is raised, the same is required to be enquired into in terms of the laid down procedures under the Act read along with Rules framed thereunder. It is contended that learned trial court erred in not adopting the said procedures which vitiates the order impugned. Learned counsel appearing for the State, on the other hand, accepts the aforesaid submission of the petitioner that once an application is filed for declaring an accused juvenile in terms of the provision of the Act, the same has to be dealt with in the manner spelt out in the Act and in the Rule framed thereunder. It is, however submitted that the school leaving certificate was issued a day prior to filing of the application in court. Be that as it may, if a plea has been raised, the same has to be dealt with in the manner spelt out in the Act and Rule framed thereunder. In that view of the matter, this Court is satisfied that order impugned refusing to enquire into the plea of the petitioner is not in accordance with law and requires interference. Consequently, order impugned dated 23.10.2008 is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the trial court to consider the said application of the petitioner and dispose of the same in accordance with law. hr ( Kishore K. Mandal )