IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.53229 of 2007 MD. SONU @ MD. NOOR ALAM, SON OF MD. ISRAFIL, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- LAXMANPUR, P.S. ARRAH (MUFASSIL), DISTRICT-BHOJPUR ------------------ Petitioner Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----- Opp.Party ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Pramod Mishra, Advocate For the State : Mr. R.B.S. Pahipuri, A.P.P. ---------- O R D E R 2. 11.2.2009 The Petitioner, one of the F.I.R. named accused of Sessions Trial No.202 of 2006 arising out of Arrah(Town) P.S. Case No.83 of 2004, has prayed for the quashing of the order dated 11.9.2007 passed in the said Sessions Trial by the learned Presiding Judge, Fast Track Court No.II, Bhojpur at Arrah, whereby he has rejected the petition of the petitioner for being declared a juvenile and to bifurcate his case from the others and sending it to the Juvenile Board for the requisite. It appears from perusal of the impugned order that the plea of the petitioner being a juvenile on the day of occurrence (20.7.2004) was based on the basis of the date inscribed in the admit card granted to him by the Bihar School Examination Committee which was 5.11.1990. The plea was sought to be turned down on the ground that a Photostat copy and not the original copy of the admit card had been produced in the court and secondly the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate on production of the petitioner before him on 21.7.2004 had assessed his age as 20 years. The court also relied on the submissions of the learned A.P.P. that the charge having been framed as far back as on 12.9.2006 and the trial was fixed for prosecution - 2 - evidence, the petition had been filed to delay the trial. It is well settled by now that the plea of the accused being a juvenile at the time of occurrence can be raised and entertained at any time including the appellate stage and should not be overlooked on a technical ground. Reference in this connection can be made to the majority view of the Special Bench of this Court in the case of Gopal Nag Vs. State of Bihar, reported in 2000(3) PLJR 802. That apart the admit card is a valid document of proof of age. If the court brooked any doubts on the Photostat copy of the admit card, it should have directed for the production of the original instead of rejecting the prayer of the petitioner on the ground of the same being a Photostat copy of the original. Even the reliance placed on the age as assessed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate is misplaced since the assessment by the Magistrate was not based on scientific analysis or medical opinion or after holding an inquiry but merely on eye estimation only which at times can be very deceptive. In view of the discussions made in the foregoing paragraphs, this application is allowed and the impugned order is hereby quashed. The learned court below will now take steps in accordance with law. NKS/- (Abhijit Sinha,J)