Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:137764 Reserved on 14.7.2025 Delivered on 13.8.2025 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 5360 of 2024 Revisionist :- Y Juvenile Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Raghuvansh Misra Counsel for Opposite Party :- Bharat Singh,G.A. Hon'ble Siddharth,J. 1. Heard Sri Raghuvansh Misra, learned counsel for the revisionist; Sri Bharat Singh, learned counsel for opposite party no.2; learned A.G.A. for the State-respondents and perused the material on record. 2. The present criminal revision has been filed to set and aside the judgement and order dated 8.8.2024 passed by Children's Court/ Special Judge (POCSO Act), Budaun, in Criminal Appeal No. 24 of 2023 and order dated 19.1.2022 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Budaun, in Case Crime No. 263 of 2021, under Section 302 I.P.C, Police Station Civil Line, District Budaun. 3. After revisionist was declared juvenile by the order dated 24.8.2021 by Juvenile Justice Board, Budaun and cognizance was taken on 13.1.2022 under Section 302 IPC. Out of three members of the Board, two of them objected to the aforesaid order. One member, namely, Arvind Kumar, recorded his separate opinion, disagreeing with Principal Magistrate and giving opinion that the cognizance on offences, under Sections 304-A, 289 and 238 IPC, should have been taken instead of cognizance under Section 302 IPC. Smt. Pramila Gupta, another member, expressed the same opinion as given by Mr. Arvind Kumar. On 19.1.2022 preliminary assessment of the revisionist under Section 15 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act was made and the Principal Magistrate declared the revisionist as capable of understanding consequences of his act and his case was transferred for trial as per Section 18(3) of the Act. Majority opinion of two members held that preliminary assessment cannot be done due to lapse of substantial time and in the absence of report of expert/psychologist the revisionist should be tried as juvenile. On appeal, the Children court affirmed the order of Juvenile Justice Board. 4. Learned counsel for the revisionist has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Barun Chandra Thakur Vs. Master Bholu and Another, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 870 and has submitted that it is mandatory for the Juvenile Justice Board to take assistance of experienced psychologists, psycho-social workers, or other experts, while conducting preliminary assessment under Section 15 of the Act. On perusal of the dissenting opinion rendered by the majority members of the Juvenile Justice Board, was established that no expert/ psychologist/ psycho social worker was available at the time of preliminary assessment of the revisionist. The Juvenile Justice Board on 10.01.2022 had rejected the application of the prosecution for taking cognizance under section 302 of I.P.C., since preliminary assessment of the revisionist was yet to be conducted. Thus, even the Juvenile Justice Board was clear that without a valid order of preliminary assessment, the revisionist could not be prosecuted in trial for offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. The order of taking cognizance under Section 302 of I.P.C. was itself improper. On careful scrutiny it transpires that two members of the Juvenile Justice Board were not in support of cognizance being taken under Section 302 of I.P.C. As per section 7(4) of the J.J. Act, the opinion of the majority members prevails. That being so, the order of preliminary assessment dated 19.01.2022 had also been passed with dissent of two members, holding that the revisionist could not be tried as adult. Appellate Court, misinterpreted the dissenting opinion and its endorsement by the other members of the Juvenile Justice Board is wrong. Instead of calling for a report from the Juvenile Justice Board, the Appellate Court proceeded and passed orders on conjectures/surmises. 5. Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 has opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the revisionist and has submitted that as per Section 7(4) of the act when there is no opinion of majority available, the opinion of Principal Magistrate shall prevail and hence the cognizance order dated 13.1.2022 was based on the order of the Principal Magistrate and was in accordance with law. 6. After hearing the rival contentions, this Court finds that the argument of learned counsel for opposite party no.2 that the opinion of Principal Magistrate shall prevail, if there is no majority opinion, appears to be justified. However, the lapse on the part of the Juvenile Justice Board to get the preliminary assessment made as per Section 15 of the Act before referring the case for trial of the revisionist as adult under Section 18(3) of the Act vitiates the order passed by the Juvenile Justice Board and the order passed by the appellate court. This Court finds that the incident took place in the year 2021 and therefore the preliminary assessment as per Section 15 of the Act may not be of any help at this stage keeping in view the requirements of Section 14/15 of the Act. Therefore revisionist is directed to be tried as Juvenile by the Juvenile Justice Board. 7. The aforesaid impugned orders are hereby set aside. 8. The above noted criminal revision is allowed. Order Date :- 13.8.2025 Ruchi Agrahari Digitally signed by :- RUCHI AGRAHARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad