1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICTURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR. O R D E R Mukaddar Ali. Versus State of Rajasthan. S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.747/2007 ... Date of Order: August 06, 2007 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.R. PANWAR Mr. Harish Purohit, for the petitioner. Mr. V.R. Mehta, Public Prosecutor for the State. BY THE COURT: This criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “the Code” hereinafter) is directed against the order dated 6-7-2007 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.1., Hanumangarh (for short, “the trial Court” hereinafter) in Sessions Case No.28/2006, whereby the request of the accused-petitioner to send the case to the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Bikaner for trial, was rejected. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor for the State. Carefully gone through the order impugned. The facts and circumstances giving rise to the instant 2 revision petition are that on a crime report lodged with the Police Station, Hanumangarh Junction on 26-10-2004 for the offence under Section 302/34 IPC, a thorough investigation ensued by the police and on completion of the investigation, the police filed Challan against the accused-petitioner and others under Section 302/34 IPC. The trial Court, by the impugned order, dismissed the application on the ground that earlier also the accused- petitioner filed an application for determination of age under Section 49 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (for short, “the Juvenile Justice Act” hereinafter) and he was put to medical examination and the Medical Board was constituted, before which the petitioner appeared and the Medical Board opined that the age of the petitioner is 19 to 20 years. Accepting this, the petitioner requested the trial Court for not proceeding any more with regard to determination of his age as he admitted the age determined by the Medical Board. Thus, the petitioner had accepted that he was about 19 to 20 years in age and that application came to be decided on 4-5-2005. Thus, the question of determination of petitioner's age has been finally decided by the order of the trial Court dated 4-5-2005, may be on the saying of the petitioner himself. The petitioner did not seek any further inquiry for determination of his age. As the inquiry held was sufficient to hold that the petitioner is not a juvenile. 3 However, subsequently the petitioner again moved an application for determination of his age. The trial Court dismissed that application on the ground that this question has already been considered and decided and attained finality. In my view, there was sufficient material before the trial Court to hold that on the relevant date of occurrence, the petitioner was above the age of 18 years, which has been admitted even by the petitioner himself. In the circumstance, therefore, the trial Court was justified in dismissing the application by the impugned order. I do not find any error, illegality or perversity in the order impugned warranting interference. The revision petition is, therefore, dismissed. (H.R. PANWAR), J. mcs