IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.297 of 2008 TAPESHWARI DEVI WIFE OF LATE UMESH CHANDRA SINGH, R/O- VILLAGE KHAIRA BIGAHA, P.S.- AND DISTRICT- ARWAL. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. RAJU KUMAR, S/O- MAHESH CHANDRA SINGH, R/O- VILLAGE KHAIRA BIGAHA, P.S.- AND DISTRICT- ARWAL 3. JITENDRA KUMAR, S/O- KAMESHWAR SINGH, R/O- VILLAGE KHAPURA, P.S. + DISTRICT- ARWAL. For the petitioner : Mr. N.K. Agrawal, Sr. Advocate For the O.P. : Mr. Mahendra Thakur, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Abhimanyu Sharma, APP ----------- 4 03.09.2010 Heard both sides. Informant is the petitioner. He has filed the present application aggrieved by the order dated 6.12.2007 whereby learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jehanabad, on an application filed by the accused (O.P. nos. 2 and 3), have found and declared them juvenile. Learned counsel for opposite parties, on the other hand with reference to the averments made in the supplementary counter affidavit, submits that at the time when the impugned order was passed, Juvenile Justice Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board) in terms of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as Act) was not constituted. In that situation, the order impugned was passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jehanabad. It is stated that subsequently on constitution of the Board, the matter was referred to the Board where also by order dated 16.6.2009, the accuseds (O.Ps) have been declared juvenile. It is thus the 2 contention that the present application has become infructuous. It is also the contention of O.Ps that if at all the informant is/was aggrieved by the order dated 16.6.2009, the remedy was filing appeal in terms of Section 52 of the Act. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner states that the procedure adopted by the Board was contrary to the provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder. It is stated that both the accused had passed matriculation examination and as such the Board ought to have directed to produce matriculation certificate and/or called for the matriculation certificate as in terms of Rule 12 of the Act, the Court has to first place reliance on the educational/matriculation certificate if it is found that accused had passed the matriculation examination. It is thus the contention that an irregular procedure has been adopted by the Board. Be that as it may, the present application seems to have been infructuous as subsequent thereto the Board has passed an order declaring the O.Ps as juvenile. If at all the informant is aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the remedy is/was to file appeal in terms of Section 52 of the Act. In view of the aforementioned, the present application is devoid of merit. It is accordingly dismissed. pkj ( Kishore K. Mandal, J. )