IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.833 of 2010 AKHLESH KUMAR @ AKLESH KUMAR S/O BAUWARY RAI R/O VILL. PARATI GANGAJAL P.S. RAJA PAKAR, DIST. VAISHALI. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR For the Petitioner : Mr. Subodh Prasad, Advocate. For the State : Mr. C.Sen Prasad Singh, APP. ----------- 03 24.06.2010 Heard both sides. Petitioner is facing Sessions Trial no. 115 of 2009/119 of 2009, for having committed rape on the daughter of the informant. He is aggrieved by order dated 01.05.2010, passed by the learned trial Judge (Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court no. III) Vaishali at Hajipur, whereby his application dated 18.10.2007 seeking a declaration that he is a minor (juvenile) has been considered and rejected. A brief background of the case necessary for the disposal of the present case may be indicated. Petitioner filed an application on 28.07.2009, claiming himself to be juvenile on the strength of a photo copy of the school leaving certificate which was obtained by him. It was contended therein that he surrendered in this case before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, who without assessing the age of the petitioner remanded him to jail custody rejecting his prayer for bail. The said application, by the impugned order, has been considered and rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Court where the said claim/ issue was raised was duty bound to 2 embark on an enquiry and take appropriate evidence and thereafter dispose of the said claim in terms of Section 7(A) of the Juvenile Justice ( Care and Protection of Children) Act 2000, ( for short the ‘Act’) Section 7A of the said Act reads as under: “7A. Procedure to be followed when claim of juvenility is raised before any court.- (i)Whenever a claim of juvenility is raised before any court or a court is of the opinion that an accused person was 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 a finding whether the person is a juvenile or a child or not, stating his age as nearly as may be: Provided that a claim of juvenility may be raised before any court and it shall be recognized at any stage, even after final disposal of the case, and such claim shall be determined in terms of the provisions contained in this Act and the rules made thereunder, even if the juvenile has ceased to be so on or before the date of commencement of this Act. (2)…………” Learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State, on the other hand, opposed the prayer. It appears that the petitioner was earlier facing trial being Sessions Trial no. 220(A)/2005. He was remanded in the present case on the strength of the production warrant. The claim of the petitioner that he surrendered in the present case was, thus, found to be a false statement. The learned trial Judge where the present issue was raised for the first time called for the records of Sessions Trial no. 220(A)/ 2005. On perusal of the record of said Sessions Trial, it was found that the learned trial Judge had assessed age of the petitioner as 25 years on the date of judgment 3 i.e. 30.10.2009. Learned Court below also found from the said record that the statement of the petitioner was recorded on 20.09.2007 under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, where he voluntarily disclosed his age as 22 years which was accepted by the Court. It further appears that such a claim was raised before the trial Court at a much belated stage. The provision of the Act cannot be allowed to be mis-utilized in the manner the petitioner has ventured to do in the case at hand. The Act provides that the Court where such issue has been raised may make an enquiry as may be necessary in order to determine the age of the person. The learned trial Judge has, in fact, made an enquiry inasmuch as the records of Sessions Trial no. 220A/ 2005 were called for in order to appreciate the veracity of the claim. On making such enquiry, it was found that the plea of the petitioner was wholly misplaced and unfounded. Such issue was raised with a view to protract the trial. This Court finds no infirmity and/ or illegality in the order impugned. The application is, accordingly, dismissed. Sym ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)