IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1271 of 2009 1. Jagjeet Singh @ Jagjit Kumar, son of Birendra Singh. 2. Law Singh @ Law Kumar, son of Birendra Singh. 3. Kush Singh @ Kush Kumar, son of Surendra Singh. (Resident of village-Pachama, P.S.-Hasan Bazar, District- Bhojpur) ……….Petitioners Versus The State of Bihar ……..Opposite Party ----------- 2. 13.09.2011 The accused petitioners have preferred this revision application against the order dated 2.06.2009 passed by the learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Arrah in Sessions Trial No.82/08 by which the prayer of the petitioners to declare them juvenile has been rejected. It is submitted that the petitioners are facing trial in S.T.No.82/08 arising out of Hasan Bazar P.S. Case No.213/04 for the offences punishable under Section 307 and other minor sections of the I.P.C. The petitioners filed a petition dated 17.03.2009 stating therein that on 24.10.2004 i.e. the date of occurrence, they were juvenile as the date of birth of petitioner no.1 is 5.01.1989, petitioner no.2 is 9.02.1990 and petitioner no.3 is 5.06.1990. As such, they were juvenile at the time of occurrence, but their petition was dismissed only on the 2 ground that the petition has been filed at a belated stage and petitioners want to linger the case as they have been directed to be physically present for framing of charge against the accused including the petitioners. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that under Section 7 (A) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, the accused can claim the juvenility in any court at any stage and such petition cannot be discarded/rejected on the ground that it had been filed at the belated stage. He has further submitted that the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 have been framed in which there is provision under Rule 12 giving guidelines for considering the documents and procedure for determination of age of person claiming to be a juvenile. He has also submitted that Bihar Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2003 have also been framed under the Act and under Rule 22, procedure is to be followed by a Court. The learned counsel for the State could not controvert the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners. 3 It appears that after amendment, the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 provision 7 (A) has been added which enables a person to claim juvenility before any court. This amendment has come into force from 22.08.2006 and the petition claiming the juvenile has been filed by the petitioner on 17.03.2009. Certainly, the petition was fit to be entertained and it should not have been rejected/ discarded as it was belated one. Considering the facts and circumstances stated above, in my opinion, the impugned order is not fit to be sustained. It is set aside. The matter is remanded to the learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Arra to pass fresh orders in accordance with law. In the result, this petition is allowed. V.K. Pandey ( Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)