1 Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:127931 Reserved On:- 14.07.2025 Delivered On:- 31.07.2025 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 5577 of 2024 Revisionist :- Juvenile X Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Ajai Kumar Srivastava, Govind Prasad Pal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Siddharth, J. 1. As per office report dated 4.7.2025 notice on opposite party no. 2 has been served, but no one has put in appearance on behalf of opposite party no. 2 to oppose this criminal revision. 2. Heard Sri Pradeep Kumar Pal, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Govind Prasad Pal, learned counsel for the revisionist; learned A.G.A for the State and perused the material placed on record. 3. The present criminal revision is being filed challenging the impugned order dated 13.08.2024 passed by the Special Judge (POCSO Act), Kaushambi in Misc. Case No. 37 of 2024 (Raju Pal @ Ram Milan vs. State of U.P & Others), whereby Delay Condonation Application (Paper No. 5Ka) filed under Section 5 of Indian Limitation Act dated 24.04.2024 has been dismissed. 4. The revisionist preferred time barred appeal supported by an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act challenging the order dated 03.02.2023 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Kaushambi whereby the prayer of revisionist to declare him juvenile was allowed and he was found to be aged between 16 – 18 years and board directed that to his preliminary assessment regarding his physical and mental capacity to commit the heinous offence and 2 understand its consequences should be determined. Against the aforesaid order dated 03.02.2023 of the board the revisionist preferred the time barred revision with delay of 1 year, 1 month and 21 days. 5. Learned counsel for the revisionist has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Rahul Kumar Yadav vs. State of Bihar repeated in 2024 0 Supreme (SC) 441, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that plea of juvenility, even if not taken before trial or High Court can be raised before the Supreme Court. In the present case, the plea of revisionist has already been accepted by Juvenile Justice Board and only direction has been given to make preliminary assessment under Section 15 of the Juvenile Justice Act. The case law of Rahul Kumar Yadav (Supra) cited before this court by counsel for the revisionist has no relevance for deciding this dispute. 6. This court has gone through the order of Juvenile Justice Board and finds that the board has considered the educational certificate of the revisionist of class Ist and IInd and found it reliable. On the basis of date of birth of 15.07.2005 recorded therein the board determined age of revisionist on the date of incident at 25.12.2022 as 17 years, 5 days and 10 days. His date of birth mentioned in class Vth certificate was 01.01.2007 which was rightly disbelieved by the board since the date of birth recorded in the school first attended is more reliable than the date of birth recorded in class-Vth. The delay condonation application has been rejected by the children’s court but this court finds that even if the same is allowed, there is no likelihood of appeal being allowed on merits because of the considerations made hereinabove. 7. The criminal revision lacks merit and is hereby, dismissed. Order Date :- 31.07.2025 Rohit Digitally signed by :- ROHIT DAS High Court of Judicature at Allahabad