IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER KAMLENDRA SINGH VS. STATE OF RAJ. AND ANR. SB Criminal Revision Pet. No. 532 of 2008 under Section 397 read with section 401 Cr.P.C. against the order dated March 14, 2008 of Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambhar Lake, Disttt. Jaipur in Sessions Case No. 15 of 2001 and against the order dated October 30, 2002 Addl. Sessions Judge Sambhar Lake in Criminal Case No. 54 of2001 whereby the application u/s. 49 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and protection of Children) Act, 2000 were rejected. Date of Order : November 24, 2008 PRESENT HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA Mr. G.S.Shekhawat for the petitioner. Mr. B.N. Sandu, PP for the State BY THE COURT : This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated March 14, 2008 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge Sambhar Lak in Sessions Case No. 15 of 2001 and against the order dated October 30, 2002 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge Sambhar lake in Criminal Misc. Case No. 54 of 2001 whereby the applications filed under section 49 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children ) Act, 2000 (in short JJ Act) were rejected. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the accused petitioner was implicated in an incident dated Feb. 12, 2001 and the Police Station Dudu after investigation filed charge sheet against the petitioner for offence under sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 323, 341 and 307 IPC and the same is presently pending for trial before Addl. Sessions Judge Sambhar lake. 3. The petitioner moved an application under section 49 of JJ Act and the same was rejected by the trial court on October 30, 2002. After gap of six years when the trial was likely to be concluded, the petitioner further moved application under Section 49 of the JJ Act and the same was dismissed by the order dated March 14, 2008. Hence this petition was preferred. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Mr. G.S. Shekhawat, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the trial court has neither considered the provisions of Section 49 of the JJ Act nor Rule 22(5) of the Rajasthan Juvenile Justice ( Care and protection of Children ) Rules, 2002 ( in short JJ Rules) and rejected the applications filed by the petitioner twice in the case. The learned counsel contended that the petitioner is free to move applications number of time as per the provisions of section 7 of the JJ Act and there is no ban on the petitioner to file such applications. The learned counsel further contended that the trial court has not considered this aspect of the matter that the petitioner is below 18 years. The learned counsel further contended that the trial court adopted different yardstick in the matter of Lakhan Singh and the case of the present petitioner is not different from the case of Lakhan Singh, whose trial has been ordered to be conducted by Juvenile Court vide order dated August 7, 2008. The learned counsel drawn my attention to the documents filed before the trial court and relied upon the cases reported in Pratap Singh vs. State of Jharkhand and another (2005 Cr.L.R. (SC) 298), Ramdayal vs. State of Rajasthan (2008 (2) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 1478 ) Surendra Kumar vs. State of Rajasthan (2008 (4) Western Law Cases 443), Balu @ Bhkthvatchalu vs. State of Tamilnadu (2008 (1) Western Law Cases (SC) Criminal 479) and Lakhan Singh vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B.Criminal Revision Petition No. 398 of 2006 decided on May 1, 2006. 5. Mr. B.N. Sandu, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the submissions raised by the petitioner and contended that the trial is likely to be completed and the petitioner has not approached this court when his first application was rejected on October 30, 2002 i.e. Six years before. His earlier application was rejected on October 30, 2002 and he has not given any explanation regarding filing of revision petition after a delay of six years. 6. For these reasons I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the orders passed by the trial court on October 30, 2002 and March 14, 2008 and at the same time I direct that the trial court shall consider all the arguments advanced by the learned counsel Shri G.S. Shekhawat in this revision petition, at the time of final arguments of the case. 7. This petition is dismissed as indicated above. Stay 8. In view of the order passed in the main petition, the stay application also stands disposed of. (Mahesh Chandra Sharma) J. OPPareek/