1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL REVISION No.678 of 2011 ============================================= Anup Kumar, son of Harinarayan Prasad @ Hari Narayan Sah, resident of village-Karbigahiya Chowk, Near Chiraintanr Pool, P.S.-Jakkanpur, District-Patna. .... .... Petitioner Versus The State Of Bihar .... .... Opp.Party ============================================= 5 15-07-2011 The accused petitioner has preferred this revision application against the order dated 1.04.2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, II, Patna City in S.T.No.965/2010. Heard Mr.Shekhar Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the date of occurrence is 20.01.2010 and the date of birth of the petitioner is 6.02.1994 and a petition was filed before the learned trial court to declare him juvenile. The petitioner has filed photocopy of transfer certificate issued by the Headmaster, Adhunik Shiksha Madhya Vidyalaya, Lohanipur, Kadamkuan, Patna, but the learned Additional Sessions Judge has rejected the prayer of the petitioner on the basis of report of the report of the Medical Board showing the age of the petitioner above 18 years and by appearance also, 2 the petitioner does not appear to be a juvenile. He has further submitted that in similar facts and circumstances the co- accused Kanhai Kumar has also filed a petition for declaring him juvenile and his prayer has also been dismissed by the same impugned order and thereafter the accused Kanhai Kumar has filed Cr.Rev.No.720/2011 and vide order dated 27.06.2011, a Bench of this Court has set aside the order so far as he is concerned and the matter has been remitted to the court below for fresh consideration and disposal of the matter in accordance with law. Learned counsel for the State could not controvert the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner while opposing his prayer. After hearing the learned counsel for both the parties and on perusal of the materials available on record, it appears that the F.I.R. was lodged against the unknown under Section 364 I.P.C. and subsequently Section 302 of I.P.C. was added therein. After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the petitioner and others. The matter thereafter was committed and was pending before the learned trial court. On 3 23.09.2010, a petition was filed by the petitioner seeking an inquiry as contemplated in the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 and to declare him juvenile. The petitioner has produced a photocopy of the Transfer Certificate issued by the Headmaster, Adhunik Shiksha Madhya Vidyalaya, Lohanipur, Kadamkuan, Patna showing his date of birth is 6.02.1994. The learned trial court has rejected the contention of the petitioner on the ground that according to the report of the medical board, he does not appear to be a juvenile and he has failed to produce the original certificate. The petitioner asserts that he is ready and willing to produce the evidence in support of his contention according to rule. It appears that Rule 22 of the Bihar Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of the Children) Rules, 2003 has not been followed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, II, Patna City while considering the matter of gravity. Considering the aforementioned facts and circumstances, in my opinion, the impugned order so far as the petitioner is concerned is not fit to be sustained. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 1.04.2011 passed by 4 learned Additional Sessions Judge, II, Patna City in S.T.No.965/2010 is set aside to this extent and the matter is remitted to the concerned court for fresh consideration and disposal in accordance with law. The petitioner will cooperate with the court in expeditious disposal of the matter. In the result, this petition is allowed. Let the order be communicated to the concerned court through fax at the cost of the petitioner. V.K.Pandey (Amaresh Kumar Lal, J)