IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.204 of 2010 Md. Mustaque son of Md. Aiyab, resident of village Majhaulia, P.S. Sadar, District Muzaffarpur ………………….Petitioner Versus State Of Bihar ……………..Opposite Party ----------- 2. 20.09.2011 The accused petitioner has preferred this revision application against the order dated 24.11.2009 passed by the learned 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur, in Sessions Trial No. 164 of 1998, by which the prayer of the petitioner to declare him a juvenile has been rejected. The main contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the prayer of the petitioner to declare him a juvenile has been rejected by the learned Trial Court on the ground that the petition has been filed at a belated stage and after closing the evidence of the prosecution and after the examination of the accused- petitioner under Section 313 Cr. P.C. in which the petitioner has stated his age as 28 years and also on the ground that the petitioner has not filed any document to substantiate his claim that he was below the age of 16 years at the time of the occurrence. He has further submitted that from the perusal of the First 2 Information Report, it appears that at the time of occurrence, the age of petitioner has been recorded as about 12 years. He has also submitted that after amendment of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, the claim of juvenility can be raised before any court and at any stage under Section 7 A of the Act. He has also submitted that Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, has also been framed laying down the procedure to be followed in determination of age. In Sub- rule 3 of Section 12 of the aforesaid Rules, guidelines have been given for the determination of age of a juvenile. This procedure has not been followed by the learned trial Court. The learned counsel for the State could not controvert the contention of the petitioner. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for State, it appears that the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is correct. The aforesaid Act has been amended and the Section 7A has been enforced with effect from 22.08.2006 by amending Act 33 of 2006 laying down that the matter of juvenility can be raised before any Court at any stage and the Rule 12 (3) has been framed as a guideline/procedure to 3 be followed by the Court while considering the age / juvenility of the person. It appears from the impugned order that the provision has not been followed by the learned Court. Considering the facts and circumstances, in my opinion the impugned order is not fit to be sustained. It is set aside. The matter is remanded to the learned Trial Court to consider it afresh in accordance with law. In the result, this petition is allowed. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned Court below through fax at the cost of the petitioner. Saif/- (Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)