IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.974 of 2008 CHANDAN KUMAR SON OF GAURI SHANKAR PRASAD VERMA THROUGH THE NATURAL GUARDIAN GAURI SHANKAR PRASAD VERMA R/O- VILLAGE GANDHI NAGAR, KULUHA, P.S.- AHIYAPUR, DISTRICT- MUZAFFARPUR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR For the petitioner : Mr. Yogesh Chandra Verma, Sr. Advocate Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Parmeshwar Mehta, APP For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate 3 21.01.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, State and the informant. Petitioner raises a grievance with regard to order dated 2.8.2008 passed in Cr. Appeal No. 46 of 2008 by learned Sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur whereby the appeal preferred by the informant (O.P. No. 2) against adjudication made by Learned Juvenile Justice Board, Muzaffarpur has been interfered with and quashed. Learned Sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur has remitted the case back to the Learned Juvenile Justice Board for reconsideration. This is what the Learned Sessions Judge has observed in the order: “… The school leaving certificate was issued by a Rajkiya Madhya Viddyalay Basant and the birth certificate is also issued by Bettiah Municipal Corporation West Champaran but the parents of Chandan Kumar have not stated anywhere that they ever resided in Bettiah and studied there in a school They have disclosed that they are residents of a village falling with the jurisdiction of Ahiyapur police station in Muzaffarpur town. It appears from perusal of the order impugned that the learned Juvenile Justice Board did not advert to the evidence produced on behalf of the informant and came to a finding without appreciating the evidence. Therefore, I find that the order impugned is not in accordance with law and fit to be set aside.“ - 2 - Learned counsel for the petitioner made diverse submissions in support of the application. One of the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner is that normally in a case of remand, the Court below is prejudiced by the observations made in the order of remand issued by the higher Court. This Court finds that the Learned Sessions Judge on a consideration of the entire matter has remitted the case back to the Court below for fresh adjudication keeping in view the oral evidence adduced by the parties which include thereof the parents of the petitioner. This Court is, therefore, not inclined to interfere with the order impugned. This Court, however, clarifies that any part of the order impugned excepting the one quoted hereinabove shall not be taken into consideration by the Court below while deciding the issue of juvenility afresh in accordance with law. The application is disposed of. pkj (Kishore K. Mandal, J)