# Sachin Revisionist v. State of U.P. & Anr. 1160 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

- **Citation:** (2022) 6 ILRA 1159
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-05-30
- **Case number:** Criminal Revision No. 119 of 2022
- **Bench:** Shamim Ahmed
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sachin-revisionist-v-state-of-u-p-anr-1160-indian-law-reports-allahabad-series-48638
- **Pages:** 10

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 -
Section 94 (2) & 7A r/w Rule 12 of
Juvenile
Justice
Rules-Presumption
and
determination of age-Revisionist was juvenile on
the date of alleged incidence-high school
certificate-minor-chargesheet recorded 20 years
age-impugned order considered age to be 20
years by taking margin of two years- section 7A
of Act, 2015 r/w Rule 12 of the 2007 Rules-any
other certificates will be considered only in the
absence
of
matriculation
or
equivalent
certificates-impugned order set aside and
reversed-Revision allowed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

6 All. Sachin Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1159
Adulteration Act, although on the facts and
circumstances of the case, the court came
to the conclusion that it was neither
expedient nor in consonance with the
object with which the Prevention of Food
Adulteration Act was passed to apply
Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act
to the case in hand. The principle laid down
in Isher Das's case (supra) was again
affirmed in Pyarali K, Tejani v. Mahadeo
Ramchandra Dange and others : AIR
1974 SC 28. In the words of Iyer, J.:

"The rehabilatory purpose of the
Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, is
pervasive enough technically to take within
its wing? an offence even under the Act."

12. The principle that emerges from
these decisions is that the Probation of
Offenders Act apply to offences under the
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, Its
operation cannot be whittled down or
circumscribed by the fact that a minimum
sentence is provided for certain offences
and no discretion is left to the court in that
matter.

13. In view of above, this Court is of
the view that the benefit of the First
Offenders Probation Act can be allowed to
an accused who is found guilty of an
offence under the provisions of Prevention
of Food Adulteration Act (Act No. 37 of
1954), to which the proviso to Section 16
of the Act does not apply.

14.

Considering
the
fact
and
circumstance of the case, I am of the view
that the benefit of provision of Probation of
Offender Act, 1958 should be provided to
the accused/appellant.

15. Thus, the revision is partly
allowed. The judgment and order dated
28.01.2004 passed by learned Additional
District and Sessions Judge (F.T.C.),
District Sonbhadra, dismissing Criminal
Appeal No. 5 of 1998(Virendra Kumar Vs.
State), preferred against the judgment and
order dated 18.02.1998 passed by learned
Special
Judicial
Magistrate,
Duddhi,
District Sonbhadra in Criminal Case No.
228 of 1987 (State Vs. Shyam Sundar
Agrahari and another), under Section 7/16
of Food Adulteration Act, Police Station
Shakti Nagar, District Sonbhadra, so far as
it relates with the conviction of revisionist
is maintained, but the sentence is modified.
Instead of sending the revisionist, Virendra
Kumar, to jail, he is given benefit of
Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders
Act, 1938. He is directed to file two
sureties bonds of Rs.20,000/- and a
personal bond of same amount to the effect
that he shall maintain peace and good
behaviour and shall not commit any
offence during the period of one year. The
bonds aforesaid be filed by him within two
months from the date of this judgment
before
District
Probation
Officer,
Sonbhadra.

16. Copy of this judgment along with
lower court record be sent to the District
Judge, Sonbhadra with immediate effect for
compliance.
----------
(2022)06ILR A1159
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 30.05.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHAMIM AHMED, J.

Criminal Revision No. 119 of 2022

Sachin ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties
1160 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sri Sunil Kumar

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
Govt. Advocate, Sri Ishwar Chandra Tyagi

Criminal Law - Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 -
Section 94 (2) & 7A r/w Rule 12 of
Juvenile
Justice
Rules-Presumption
and
determination of age-Revisionist was juvenile on
the date of alleged incidence-high school
certificate-minor-chargesheet recorded 20 years
age-impugned order considered age to be 20
years by taking margin of two years- section 7A
of Act, 2015 r/w Rule 12 of the 2007 Rules-any
other certificates will be considered only in the
absence
of
matriculation
or
equivalent
certificates-impugned order set aside and
reversed-Revision allowed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

1. Ashwani Kumar Saxena Vs St. of M.P. in
Criminal Appeal No. 1403 of 2021 (decided on
13.09.2012)

2. Sanat Kumar Yadav Vs St. of M.P. in Criminal
Revision No. 3049 of 2016 (decided on
02.01.2017)

3. Akhilesh Yadav Vs Vishwanath Chaturvedi,
2013(2) SCC 1

4. Rishipal Singh Solanki Vs St. of U.P. in
Criminal Appeal No. 1240 of 2021 (decided on
18.11.2021)
(Delivered by Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed, J.)

1. Heard Sri Sunil Kumar, learned
counsel for the revisionist as well as Sri
Ishwar Chandra Tyagi, learned counsel for
the opposite party No.2 and Sri Abhishek
Shukla, learned A.G.A.-1 for the State and
perused the record.

2. This revision is directed against the
order dated 14.10.2021 passed by the
Additional District and Session Judge,
Court No.4, Amroha, on an application
(paper no. 13-B) dated 14.10.2021 moved
on behalf of the revisionist in Session Trial
No. 200 of 2018 arising out of Case Crime
No. 735 of 2017: State of U.P. Vs. Pravav
and others, under Section 395, 397, 427,
412 I.P.C. Police Station Gajraula, District
Amroha by which he was pleased to reject
the application dated 14.10.2021 of the
revisionist-applicant seeking declaration of
applicant to be Juvenile conflict with law
and to refer his case to the Juvenile Justice
Board, Amroha.

3. Learned A.G.A. has filed counter
affidavit, which is on record. Learned
counsel for the opposite party no.2 submits
that he will argue the case in absence of
counter affidavit and learned counsel for
the revisionist submits that there is no need
to file rejoinder affidavit, therefore, this
court has no option to hear and proceed
with the matter.

4. Learned counsel for the revisionist
submits that the court below has passed the
impugned order without jurisdiction vested
in
it,
therefore,
the
revisionist
has
approached this Court directly by filing of
the present revision and without filing the
appeal under Section 101 of the Juvenile
Justice (Care and Protection of Children)
Act, 2015 (for short ''the Act, 2015') and
the impugned order is totally illegal on the
face of the record.

5. Facts which are the genesis of the
present dispute are that an F.I.R. dated
29.12.201 was registered by the opposite
party no.2 as Case Crime No. 0735 of 2017
against six known and one unknown
persons namely, Pranav Kumar alias
Raghav, Abrar, Mujeem, Pawan Kumar,
Amar Pal Yadav, and Bittu Chauhan, under
Sections 147, 148, 149, 394, 307, 427 and
506 I.P.C. with the allegation that he is
6 All. Sachin Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1161
District
Coordinator
of
B.J.P.
On
28.12.2017 when he was sitting in his
office then accused persons along with 3040 unknown persons having illegal arms in
their hands entered in his office. Accused
Raghav opened fire by which he has
sustained injury in his hand. Again accused
Raghav shot fired which hit his computer.
In this incident Mahaveer Singh Chauhan,
Pintu Singh, Sudhir Teetu alias Saurabh
Choudhary and Anil Gupta have sustained
injuries.
The
accused
persons
also
committed loot of his golden chain, cash of
Rs. 1,40,000/- and other document besides
mobile phone and computer. They also
damaged Scorpio Car, Scooter and Motor
Cycle on account of the election enmity.

6. In the said F.I.R, the date of
incident as alleged was 28.12.2017. The
investigations were carried out and charge
sheet was filed and after filing of the
Charge-sheet the case was committed to the
Court of Sessions where it was numbered
as Session Trial No. 200 of 2018 : State Vs.
Pranav and others. The trial was transferred
to the Court of IV Additional District and
Session
Judge,
Amroha
where
the
proceedings of the present trial are going
on.

7. The revisionist has claimed to be
declare as a juvenile on the basis of his
High School Certificate which indicates his
date of birth as 10.07.2000, by filing an
application dated 14.10.2021 before the
Additional District and Session Judge,
Court No.4, Amroha to consider his case
and to refer this case for hearing before the
Juvenile Justice Board, Amroha. The
Additional District and Session Judge,
Court No.4, Amroha relying on the age of
the revisionist shown in the charge-sheet
i.e. 20 years, rejected the application of the
revisionist.

8. Learned counsel for the revisionist
submits that the revisionist is a child. His
date of birth is 10.07.2000 and the same
has been recorded in his High School
Certificate-cum-marksheet
dated
17.05.2015 issued by the Board of High
School and Intermediate Education U.P.
(Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, U.P.) for
High School Examination 2015 which the
revisionist passed with Roll No. 0723441
being regular student of S.P.L.D.S.V.
M.I.C. Hasanpur Amroha and as such on
the alleged date of incident i.e. 28.12.2017
the revisionist was less than 18 years old.

9. Learned counsel for the revisionist
further submits that neither the revisionist
was named in the F.I.R. nor he was put for
identification from any prosecution witness
nor there is any recovery or discovery of
any case property or weapon of assault
either from the possession or on the
pointing of the revisionist, nor he was
named as an accused by any witness nor
there
was
any
direct,
indirect
or
circumstantial evidence to connect the
revisionist with the alleged crime has been
collected by the Investigating Officer nor
there is any legal evidence collected against
the revisionist but despite of that merely on
the basis of confessional statement of coaccused, the revisionist has been made
accused in the present case on the basis of
charge-sheet filed by the police.

10. Learned counsel for the revisionist
further submits that the revisionist is
innocent and he has been falsely implicated
in the present case by the police, during the
course of investigation as he was not
named in the F.I.R.

11. Learned counsel for the revisionist
further submits that vide impugned order
dated
14.10.2021
learned
trial
court
1162 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
rejected the aforesaid application of the
revisionist in gross violation of the
provisions of law and without following the
procedure established by law to refer the
matter to the Committee or the Board for
determination against the spirit of the
provisions made under the Act, 2015. He
further submits that the court below did not
have jurisdiction to decide the claim of
juvenility and Juvenile Justice Board is
empowered to decided the said question.

12. Learned counsel for the revisionist
has drawn attention of this Court towards
Section 94 (2) of the Act, 2015 and submits
that Section 94 (2) provides the manner in
which the determination of age is to be
undertaken as well as also provides the
preferential documents serially having the
overriding effect on the other documents.
The said provision does also contain a
special clause that if any document as
provided is not available then how the
determination of the age is
to be
undertaken.

13. Learned counsel for the revisionist
further submits that the Child Welfare
Committee or the Juvenile Justice Board
are the only authorities competent to hold
the
enquiry
either
regarding
the
determination of the age of the Juvenile.
Accordingly the regular trial court holding
trial of any criminal case is not competent
to hold any such enquiry for determination
to the age of a Juvenile conflict with law
and to pass the order accordingly. As such
the learned Fourth Additional District and
Session Judge was supposed to refer the
application moved by the applicant before
the committee or before the Board ( as the
case may be ) for determination and he will
continue to proceed with the trial of rest of
the accused persons . Whenever the report
of Board or committee may be submitted
before
the
aforesaid
court
after
determination of age, thereafter the trial
court has to proceed accordingly but in any
case the learned trial court could not reject
the application out rightly on the basis of
the those grounds which are not known to
law and in conflict of the law.

14. Learned counsel for the revisionist
further submits that the date of birth
certificate
from
the
school
or
the
matriculation or equivalent certificate from
the concerned examination Board is given
top preference and in case if such a
certificate is not available then as a
secondary measure, the birth certificate
given by the corporation or the Municipal
authorities or Panchayat is to be given
preference and if even this certificate is not
available then only in absence of both
above certificates, determination of age is
to be done by an ossification test or by any
other latest medical determination test
conducted on the orders of the Committee
or Board. Since in the present case the
revisionist has relied upon his matriculation
certificate issued by Board of High School
and Intermediate Education U.P dated
17.05.2015 wherein the date of birth of the
revisionist has been specifically mentioned
as 10.07.2020 which proved itself that the
revision was juvenile, and since the
aforesaid document is an undisputed
document and is having top priority in view
of Section 94 (2) of the Act, therefore the
learned trial court has committed gross
illegality while rejecting the application
dated 14.10.2021 of the revisionist out
rightly without considering the provisions
of law.

15. Learned counsel for the revisionist
further submits that the learned trial court
has himself noted in the impugned order
dated 14.10.2021 that on the date of alleged
6 All. Sachin Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1163
incident i.e. 28.12.2017 the revisionist was
aged about 17 years 5 months and 18 days
old ( and his date of birth is 10.07.2000).
The learned trial court has also taken note
of the High School certificate of the
revisionist in the impugned order which
apparently proved that the learned trial
court was conscious about both these facts,
but while passing the impugned order has
totally ignored and overlooked the facts
and the impugned order was passed
ignoring the material on record.

16. Learned counsel for the revisionist
further submits that the trial court has also
noted the objections raised by the learned
Additional Government Advocate (Criminal)
on the margin of the application dated
14.10.2021 filed by the revisionist-applicant
in the impugned order and has wrongly been
relied upon the said objection that in the
charge-sheet the age of the revisionist is
shown as 20 years but surprisingly enough
the learned trial court has illegally been
observed that there is a margin of two years
both sides of the age shown in the High
School Certificate and the revisionist is
appearing to be 20 years of age physically.

17. Learned counsel for the revisionist
further submits that the findings recorded by
the learned court below in the impugned
order is perverse in nature and contrary to the
record as well as wholly illegal and without
jurisdiction. Accordingly these findings are
liable to be set aside and the impugned order
is also liable to be set aside, the trial court has
exceeded its jurisdiction which is not vested
in him, the impugned order is illegal and
liable to be set aside as the same is passed in
violation of the Act, 2015.

18. Learned A.G.A. and learned
counsel for opposite party no. 2 have
conceded that the trial court has no
jurisdiction to decide the juvenility of a
person, in view of the provision of Section
94 (2) of the Act, 2015.

19. I have heard the learned counsel
for the parties and persued the record.

20. Before this Court proceeds further
to assess the evidence and to consider and
decide the case on merits, it shall be
appropriate to examine the nature and
scope of enquiry as contemplated under the
law.

21. The Supreme Court of India in
Ashwani Kumar Saxena Vs. State of
M.P. in Criminal Appeal No. 1403 of
2021 (decided on 13.09.2012), examined
the scope of an enquiry expected from a
Court, the Juvenile Justice Board and the
Committee
in
the
light
of
earlier
judgements and was pleased to observe in
para-27 as under:-

"Section 7A, obliges the court
only
to
make
an
inquiry,
not
an
investigation or a trial, an inquiry not under
the Code of Criminal Procedure, but under
the J.J. Act. Criminal Courts, JJ Board,
Committees etc., we have noticed, proceed
as if they are conducting a trial, inquiry,
enquiry or investigation as per the Code.
Statute requires the Court or the Board only
to make an ''inquiry' and in what manner
that inquiry has to be conducted is provided
in JJ Rules. Few of the expressions used in
Section 7A and Rule 12 are of considerable
importance and a reference to them is
necessary to understand the true scope and
content of those provisions. Section 7A has
used the expression "court shall make an
inquiry", "take such evidence as may be
necessary" and "but not an affidavit". The
Court or the Board can accept as evidence
something more than an affidavit i.e. the
1164 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Court or the Board can accept documents,
certificates etc. as evidence need not be
oral evidence."

22. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held
that the enquiry on the point of juvenility
has nothing to do with the enquiry as
contemplated under other legislations and
gave an opinion in paras-32, 34 and 36 of
the aforesaid judgment of Ashwani Kumar
Saxena (supra) as below:

32. Consequently, the procedure
to be followed under the J.J. Act in
conducting an inquiry is the procedure laid
down in that statute itself i.e. Rule 12 of the
2007 Rules. We cannot import other
procedures laid down in the Code of
Criminal Procedure or any other enactment
while making an inquiry with regard to the
juvenility of a person, when the claim of
juvenility is raised before the court
exercising powers under section 7A of the
Act. Many of the cases, we have come
across, it is seen that the Criminal Courts
are still having the hangover of the
procedure of trial or inquiry under the Code
as if they are trying an offence under the
Penal laws forgetting the fact that the
specific procedure has been laid down in
section 7A read with Rule 12.

34. "Age determination inquiry"
contemplated under section 7A of the Act
r/w Rule 12 of the 2007 Rules enables the
court to seek evidence and in that process,
the court can obtain the matriculation or
equivalent certificates, if available. Only in
the absence of any matriculation or
equivalent certificates, the court need
obtain the date of birth certificate from the
school first attended other than a play
school.
Only
in
the
absence
of
matriculation or equivalent certificate or
the date of birth certificate from the school
first attended, the court need obtain the
birth certificate given by a corporation or a
municipal authority or a panchayat (not an
affidavit but certificates or documents).
The question of obtaining medical opinion
from a duly constituted Medical Board
arises only if the above mentioned
documents are unavailable. In case exact
assessment of the age cannot be done, then
the court, for reasons to be recorded, may,
if considered necessary, give the benefit to
the child or juvenile by considering his or
her age on lower side within the margin of
one year.

36. Age determination inquiry
contemplated under the JJ Act and Rules
has nothing to do with an enquiry under
other legislations, like entry in service,
retirement, promotion etc. There may be
situations where the entry made in the
matriculation or equivalent certificates,
date of birth certificate from the school first
attended and even the birth certificate given
by a Corporation or a Municipal Authority
or a Panchayat may not be correct. But
Court,
J.J.
Board
or
a
Committee
functioning under the J.J. Act is not
expected to conduct such a roving enquiry
and to go behind those certificates to
examine
the
correctness
of
those
documents, kept during the normal course
of business. Only in cases where those
documents or certificates are found to be
fabricated or manipulated, the Court, the
J.J. Board or the Committee need to go for
medical report for age determination.

23. The Madhya Pradesh High Court
in Sanat Kumar Yadav Vs. State of M.P.
in Criminal Revision No. 3049 of 2016
(decided on 02.01.2017) held that the age
determination enquiry has to be conducted
within the purview of Section 9(2) of the
Act, 2015 by seeking evidence and by
6 All. Sachin Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1165
obtaining documents mentioned under
Section 94(2) of the Act, 2015 which are
comparable with Section 7-A of the
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of
Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to
as the, ''Act, 2000) and the Rule 12(3) of
the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of
Children) Rules, 2007 (hereinafter referred
to as the, ''Rules, 2007'). In the above case
the Madhya Pradesh High Court referred to
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Akhilesh
Yadav
Vs.
Vishwanath
Chaturvedi, 2013(2) SCC 1, to stress the
point that the courts are not expected to
conduct
a
roving
enquiry
into
the
correctness of school certificate or the date
of birth certificate. Madhya Pradesh High
Court gave an opinion that school record
kept during the normal course of business
and whose authenticity or genuineness has
not been questioned can form the basis of
the determination of age of a juvenile.

24. In the case of Rishipal Singh
Solanki Vs. State of U.P. in Criminal
Appeal No. 1240 of 2021 (decided on
18.11.2021), the Hon'ble Supreme Court
held that where an application is filed
before the court claiming juvenility, the
provisions of sub Section 2 of Section 94 of
the Act, 2015 would have to be applied or
read along with sub Section 2 of Section 9
so as to seek the evidence for the purpose
of finding as regard the age. The Apex
Court also held that the burden of proving
is on the person raising such claim,
however, the documents mentioned in the
relevant rules of 2007 made under the Act,
2000 or the relevant Rules under Section
94(2) of the Act, 2015 shall be sufficient
for prima facie satisfaction of the court.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that such
presumption is not conclusive to prove the
age and is rebutable on the evidence lead
by opposite side. The Hon'ble Supreme
Court also cautioned that a hyper technical
approach should not be adopted when
evidence is adduced on behalf of the
accused in support of plea of juvenile.

25. Section 8 of The Juvenile Justice
(Care and Protection of Children) Act,
2015 provides the powers, functions and
responsibilities of the Board, which reads
as under:-

(1)
Notwithstanding
anything
contained in any other law for the time
being in force but save as otherwise
expressly provided in this Act, the Board
constituted for any district shall have the
power to deal exclusively with all the
proceedings under this Act, relating to
children in conflict with law, in the area of
jurisdiction of such Board.

(2) The powers conferred on the
Board by or under this Act may also be
exercised by the High Court and the
Children's Court, when the proceedings
come before them under section 19 or in
appeal, revision or otherwise.

(3)
The
functions
and
responsibilities of the Board shall include--

(a)
ensuring
the
informed
participation of the child and the parent or
guardian, in every step of the process;

(b) ensuring that the child's rights
are protected throughout the process of
apprehending the child, inquiry, aftercare
and rehabilitation;

(c) ensuring availability of legal
aid for the child through the legal services
institutions;

(d) wherever necessary the Board
shall provide an interpreter or translator,
1166 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
having such qualifications, experience, and
on payment of such fees as may be
prescribed, to the child if he fails to
understand the language used in the
proceedings;

(e)
directing
the
Probation
Officer, or in case a Probation Officer is
not available to the Child Welfare Officer
or a social worker, to undertake a social
investigation into the case and submit a
social investigation report within a period
of fifteen days from the date of first
production before the Board to ascertain
the circumstances in which the alleged
offence was committed;

(f) adjudicate and dispose of
cases of children in conflict with law in
accordance with the process of inquiry
specified in section 14;

(g) transferring to the Committee,
matters concerning the child alleged to be
in conflict with law, stated to be in need of
care and protection at any stage, thereby
recognising that a child in conflict with law
can also be a child in need of care
simultaneously and there is a need for the
Committee and the Board to be both
involved;

(h) disposing of the matter and
passing a final order that includes an
individual care plan for
the child's
rehabilitation, including follow up by the
Probation Officer or the District Child
Protection Unit or a member of a nongovernmental organisation, as may be
required;

(i)
conducting
inquiry
for
declaring fit persons regarding care of
children in conflict with law;

(j)
conducting
at
least
one
inspection visit every month of residential
facilities for children in conflict with law
and recommend action for improvement in
quality of services to the District Child
Protection Unit and the State Government;

(k)
order
the
police
for
registration of first information report for
offences committed against any child in
conflict with law, under this Act or any
other law for the time being in force, on a
complaint made in this regard;

(l)
order
the
police
for
registration of first information report for
offences committed against any child in
need of care and protection, under this Act
or any other law for the time being in force,
on a written complaint by a Committee in
this regard;

(m) conducting regular inspection
of jails meant for adults to check if any
child is lodged in such jails and take
immediate measures for transfer of such a
child to the observation home; and

(n) any other function as may be
prescribed.

26. Section 9 of The Juvenile Justice
(Care and Protection of Children) Act,
2015 provides procedure to be followed by
a Magistrate who has not been empowered
under this Act, reads as under:

(1) When a Magistrate, not
empowered to exercise the powers of the
Board under this Act is of the opinion that
the person alleged to have committed the
offence and brought before him is a child,
he shall, without any delay, record such
opinion and forward the child immediately
6 All. Sachin Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1167
along with the record of such proceedings
to the Board having jurisdiction.

(2) In case a person alleged to
have committed an offence claims before a
court other than a Board, that the person is
a child or was a child on the date of
commission of the offence, or if the court
itself is of the opinion that the person was a
child on the date of commission of the
offence, the said court shall make an
inquiry, take such evidence as may be
necessary
(but
not
an
affidavit)
to
determine the age of such person, and shall
record a finding on the matter, stating the
age of the person as nearly as may be:

Provided that such a claim may
be raised before any court and it shall be
recognised at any stage, even after final
disposal of the case, and such a claim shall
be determined in accordance with the
provisions contained in this Act and the
rules made thereunder even if the person
has ceased to be a child on or before the
date of commencement of this Act.

(3) If the court finds that a person
has committed an offence and was a child
on the date of commission of such offence,
it shall forward the child to the Board for
passing
appropriate
orders
and
the
sentence, if any, passed by the court shall
be deemed to have no effect.

(4) In case a person under this
section is required to be kept in protective
custody, while the person's claim of being a
child is being inquired into, such person
may be placed, in the intervening period in
a place of safety.

27. Section 18 of the Act, 2015
provides that if it is found that any child
below the age of 16 years has committed a
heinous
offence,
then,
notwithstanding
anything contrary contained in any other law
for the time being in force, may pass orders
like allowing child to go home after advice or
admonition or to direct the child to participate
in group counselling or perform community
service or may be released on probation of
good conduct or he may be sent to special
home for such period not exceeding three
years etc. Perusal of provisions of the Act,
2015 establish that in no case the child below
sixteen years of age having committed an
heinous offence can be detained as convict in
regular jails. The punishment as provided
under the above provisions is basically of
reformative nature. The general principles of
care and protection of children as given in
Chapter 2 of J. J. Act also include a principle
of repatriation and restoration of every child
with his family at the earliest.

28. Section 94 of the Act, 2015
provides presumption and determination of
age of juvenile and such presumption is not
conclusive to prove the case and is rebutable
on the evidence lead by the aggrieved parties.
Section 94 of the Ac, 2015 is reproduced
herein below:

Presumption and determination
of age.-(1) Where, it is obvious to the
Committee or the Board, based on the
appearance of the person brought before it
under any of the provisions of this Act
(other than for the purpose of giving
evidence) that the said person is a child, the
Committee or the Board shall record such
observation stating the age of the child as
nearly as may be and proceed with the
inquiry under section 14 or section 36, as
the case may be, without waiting for further
confirmation of the age.
(2) In case, the Committee or the Board has
reasonable grounds for doubt regarding
whether the person brought before it is a
1168 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
child or not, the Committee or the Board,
as the case may be, shall undertake the
process of age determination, by seeking
evidence by obtaining--

(i) the date of birth certificate
from the school, or the matriculation or
equivalent certificate from the concerned
examination Board, if available; and in the
absence thereof;

(ii) the birth certificate given by a
corporation or a municipal authority or a
panchayat;

(iii) and only in the absence of (i)
and (ii) above, age shall be determined by
an ossification test or any other latest
medical age determination test conducted
on the orders of the Committee or the
Board:

Provided such age determination
test conducted on the order of the
Committee or the Board shall be completed
within fifteen days from the date of such
order.

(3) The age recorded by the
Committee or the Board to be the age of
person so brought before it shall, for the
purpose of this Act, be deemed to be the
true age of that person.

29. In view of the facts and
circumstances as discussed above and in
agreement with the law laid down by
Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of
Ashwani
Kumar
Saxena
(supra),
Akhilesh Yadav (supra) and Rishipal
Singh Solanki (supra), as well as in view
of the law laid down by Hon'ble Madhya
Pradesh High Court in the case of Sanat
Kumar Yadav (supra), this revision
succeeds and is allowed. The impugned
order dated 14.10.2021 passed by the
Additional District and Session Judge,
Court No.4, Amroha in Session Trial No.
200 of 2018 arising out of Case Crime No.
735 of 2017: State of U.P. Vs. Pravav and
others, under Section 395, 397, 427, 412
I.P.C. Police Station Gajraula, District
Amroha is hereby set aside and reversed.

The matter is remanded back to court
of Additional District and Session Judge,
Court No.4, Amroha to pass a fresh orders
within
two
months
from
today
in
accordance with law, without granting any
unnecessary adjournments to either of the
parties.
----------
(2022)06ILR A1168
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 26.05.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J.

Criminal Revision No. 136 of 2012
AND
Criminal Revision No. 176 of 2012

Smt. Poonam Devi ...Revisionist
Versus
Narendra Kumar ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sri Satish Chandra Srivastava, Sri Manoj
Kumar
Jaiswal,
Sri
Shishir
Chandra
Srvastav, Sri Suyash Gupta

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
Sri Mukul Rakesh

Criminal
Law
-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 125-Revision
petitions of husband and wife connected-wife
claimed
for enhancement of maintenance
amount-and lumpsum cost-whereas husband
sought setting aside of the order granting
maintenance-impugned
order
granted