1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL REVISION No.1016 of 2009 ====================================================== Amresh Kumar Gupta, son of Ashok Kumar Gupta, resident of village- Wasilpur, Arwal, P.S. & District-Arwal. .... .... Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Bihar 2. Umashankar Gupta, son of Krishna Prasad Gupta, resident of village-Wasilpur, P.S. & District-Arwal. .... .... Opposite Parties ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner : Mr. Manish Kumar For the State : Mrs. Indu Bala Pandey ====================================================== 3 12-07-2011 The petitioner has preferred this revision application against the order dated 25.04.2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.IV, Jehanabad in S.Tr.No.469/08/265/08 by which petition dated 4.4.2009 for declaring him as juvenile has been rejected. Heard Mr. Manish Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is an accused in Arwal P.S.Case No.45/08 for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324, 326, 307, 504 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is a juvenile on the date of occurrence on 26.05.2008 and the date of birth of the petitioner is 2 5.02.1991. The petition dated 4.4.2009 for the declaration that the petitioner is juvenile has been rejected on two grounds that he could not produce the school certificate and secondly by physical appearance he does not appear to be a juvenile. It is submitted that the petitioner was praying for time to produce the certificate, but the time has not been granted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge to produce his certificate. It is submitted that the petitioner will produce the certificate granted by the Bihar School Examination Board, Patna within a period of two weeks. Learned A.P.P. for the State has fairly submitted that the petitioner may be granted liberty to file the certificate for the ends of justice. After hearing learned counsel for both the parties and on perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is correct. It appears from the provisions contained in Section 7 A of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 that whenever claim is raised before any court or a court is of the opinion that an accused person was a juvenile on the date of commission of the offence, the court shall make an inquiry, take such evidence as may be necessary (but not an affidavit) so as to determine the age of such person and shall record and notify whether a person is juvenile or 3 child or not, stating his age as nearly as may be. It further appears from the Rule 22 of the Bihar Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2003 that the procedure has to be followed in holding inquiry and determination of age. Considering the facts and circumstances, in my opinion, the impugned order is not fit to be sustained. The impugned order is set aside. The matter is remanded to the learned Additional District Judge, F.T.C.IV, Jehanabad to consider the petition dated 4.4.2009 afresh in the light of the aforesaid provisions and pass order in accordance with law. In the result, this application is allowed. V.K.Pandey (Amaresh Kumar Lal, J)