IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.848 of 2011 Abhay Kumar @ Palua @ Abhay Kumar Sharma @ Palua, son of Shiv Narayan Sharma, resident of village-Mahisour, P.S.- Jandaha, District- Vaishali at Hajipur. Versus The State Of Bihar . ----------- 3. 29.08.2011 The accused petitioner has preferred this revision application against the order dated 3.06.2011 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Vaishali at Hajipur in S.Tr. No.70/2010 by which the petition under Section 7A of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 has been disposed of without allowing or rejecting the petition dated 29.04.2011. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the accused petitioner was charged under Sections 364 and 302 of the I.P.C. for kidnapping a boy aged about 10 years and then committing his murder. Charge was framed on 6.04.2010 and prosecution started examining its witnesses. On 28.03.2011 and 29.03.2011, two petitions were filed before the Sessions Court praying therein that the petitioner is aged about 16 years on the date of occurrence and for deciding the matter of juvenility and the case may be sent to the Juvenile Justice Board. The said petitions 2 were rejected by the learned Sessions Judge vide order dated 16.04.2011. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that both the aforesaid petitions were filed for the same relief. The learned Sessions Judge has passed the impugned order dated 3.06.2011 that such matter has been considered by the learned Sessions Judge earlier and that order has not been challenged unless that order is set aside hearing of another petition and passing order thereon will amount to review its own order and as such, the petition has neither been rejected nor allowed. Learned counsel for the State as well as the informant has submitted that since the order dated 16.04.2011 has not been challenged by the petitioner, the learned Sessions Judge has rightly not passed any order on the petition dated 29.04.2011 filed under Section 7A of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. He has further submitted that the main motto of the petitioner is to delay the trial of the Sessions case. While rejecting the prayer for bail by a Bench of this Court, direction was given to expedite the trial of the petitioner. 3 After hearing the learned counsel for both the parties and on perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the petitioner had filed petitions dated 28-29th March, 2011 for sending the case to the Juvenile Justice Board for holding an inquiry regarding the juvenility of the petitioner and that petition was rejected, a copy of which has also been annexed as Annexure-1 to the petition. It appears from the order dated 16.04.2011 that no full- fledged inquiry has been made as envisaged under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 or under the Bihar Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2003. In both the Rules, certain guidelines have been given to the Court and procedure to be adopted for the determination of the age of a child or a juvenile. It appears that Rule has not been followed. According to the amended provisions, juvenility matter can be raised before any Court. The petitioner has filed a petition dated 29.04.2011 under Section 7A of the Act before the learned Sessions Judge where the S.Tr. No.70/10 is pending. As such, the learned Sessions Judge has to follow the rules framed under the Act. It appears from the impugned order that no such inquiry has been 4 made by the learned Sessions Judge. Considering the facts and circumstances stated above, the learned Sessions Judge, Vaishali at Hajipur is directed to hold an inquiry under Section 7A read with Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice Rules, 2007. The order dated 16.04.2011 will not come in the way of the learned Sessions Judge. In the result, the impugned order dated 3.06.2011 is set aside and this revision application is allowed with above direction. V.K. Pandey ( Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)