IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.2852 of 2007 MUNNA KUMAR @ PRIYATAM BIHARI, son of Baleshwar Prasad, resident of village Sarika, P.S.Shekhpura, District-Shekhpura-- -------------------------------------------------------------------Petitioner Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. Arun Kumar, son of Beleshwar Prasad, resident of Mohalla Kharpura, P.S.-Shekhpura and District-Shekhpura -----Opp. Parties. ----------- For the petitioner : Mr. Manish Kumar No.2, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Bhola Prasad, Advocate For the State : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, A. P.P. -------------------- 6. 30.3.2009 Heard the parties. A murder case was pending for trial making the petitioner as accused. At the stage of trial after framing of the charge, petitioner filed an application to hold him as juvenile and send his case to the Juvenile Justice Board. After hearing the parties the same was rejected. He approached this Court and a Bench of this Court allowed his prayer and that was challenged in the Supreme Court by filing S.L.P. which was allowed also with some directions, i.e., to reconsider the plea made by the parties mainly finding no representation in the High Court by the opposite party no.2 (informant). Now, it is for the consideration of the court as to whether the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge will be allowed, remain sustained or set aside. What has been taken by the learned Sessions Judge to hold the petitioner as major, i.e. while discharging petitioner’s discharged petition he was found major and earlier to that at no occasion, the plea of juvenile was taken including at the stage of bail. Further he has been assessed major by the cognizance taking court also while the three witnesses were examined. Thereafter, the petition for finding - 2 - petitioner’s case as juvenile was filed. Further the court has prima facie found the petitioner as major disbelieving his birthday record from school register on the ground of recorded as per the plea of the petitioner. Section 7A has been introduced by the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Amendment Act, 2006. Earlier to that Sub-Section (2) of Section 7 of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act was there. In both the cases assessment of age by holding an enquiry is mandate of the legislation either by the court where the trial is pending or the case is pending or by the competent authority of the Juvenile Justice Board. Now Rule is framed also to guide the court or the authority to take into consideration the relevant materials for coming to any conclusion. Sub-Rule (3) of Rule 12 is there to be followed by the court or the Board which has not been taken into consideration at all by the learned Sessions Judge. So, conclusion reached by him is not allowed to remain sustained. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and the order dated 22.12.2006 passed by the Addl. District Judge, F.T.C.-V, Shekhpura, in Sessions Trial no.414 of 2006 is quashed. Learned F.T.C.-V, Shekhpura, is directed to decide the matter of assessment of age of the accused in accordance with law. Sudip ( Mandhata Singh, J )