Reserved On:-24.09.02025 Delivered On:-27.10.2025 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4176 of 2024 In Chamber HON'BLE SIDDHARTH, J. 1. Heard Sri Saksham Srivastava, learned counsel for the revisionist; Sri Sushil Dubey, learned counsel for opposite party no.2; learned AGA for State-respondent and perused the trial court record. 2. This criminal revision has been preferred praying for setting aside the judgment and order dated 11.07.2024 passed by the Children's Court/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Bulandshahar, in Criminal Appeal No. 178/2023 (Khaleel Vs. State of U.P. and another) as well as the order dated 14.12.2022 passed by Principal Magistrate/Chairman, Juvenile Justice Board, Bulandshahr, in Misc. Case No. 235/2022(State vs Ujair) in case crime no. 490 of 2022, under section 377 IPC and 5m/6 of POCSO Act, Police Station- Gulavati, District- Bulandshahr. 3. An application was made by the father of juvenile on 07.12.2022 claiming that his son was juvenile on the date of incident dated 22.11.2022 since his date of birth is 28.06.2008. 4. Father of revisionist was examined as C.W.-1 before the Juvenile Justice Board, Bulandshahar, and he stated that the juvenile is his third child who is studying in class-9th in Lawrence Academy School. He got his son admitted in Bhartiya Siksha Sadan, Gulavati, in class-1st and he studied there up to class-4th. He studied from class-5th to class-8th in Red Rose Academy, Gulavati, and from class-9th, he studying in Lawrence Academy. 5. C.W.-2, Clerk of Red Rose Kids and Public School, Gulavati, stated that as per school record the son of the revisionist was admitted in his school in class-5th on 13.04.2018 by his father as per the admission form. On the basis of transfer certificate of class-4th of Bhartiya Siksha Sadan Vidyala, his date of birth is recorded is 28.06.2008 as per the admission register. He got the photocopy of the admission Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Akhilesh Srivastava, Rahul Singh Dahiya, Saksham Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Sushil Dubey Khaleel .....Revisionist(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) register proved from the original register. He also proved the transfer certificate of class-8th issued in favour of the son of the revisionist. 6. A.C.W.-3, Assistant Teacher of Bhartiya Siksha Satdan, stated that the son of the revisionist was admitted in class nursery in his school on 05.07.2011 by his guardian after filling the admission form and by mentioning his date of birth as 28.06.2008. He filed photocopy of the admission form after proving the same from the original brought before the court. He proved that his name is recorded in the admission register and the name of his father and mother has been correctly mentioned. After passing class-4th transfer certificate was issued in his favour and photocopy of the same was filed after proving it from the original. 7. The Juvenile Justice Board, relying upon the aforesaid evidence led before it declared the son of the revisionist as aged about 14 years, 4 months and 29 days on the date of incident dated 27.11.2022. 8. The aforesaid order of the Juvenile Justice Board dated 14.12.2022 was affirmed by the appellate court/children's court and hence this revision. 9. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that when the application dated 07.12.2022 was filed before the Board by the father of the alleged juvenile, he was neither noticed nor given any opportunity of hearing. The order was passed by the Juvenile Justice Board and the Children's Court in most illegal manner. The appellate court has not considered that educational record produced before the Board was not verified by the District Education Officer or any other competent authority. All the registers produced were forged for the purpose of getting declaration of age in favour of the alleged juvenile, opposite party no.2. 10. Learned counsel for the revisionist has further submitted that the revisionist was not afforded opportunity of cross-examine all the witnesses who appeared before the Juvenile Justice Board. The evidence of admission of opposite party no.2 in class nursery in Bhartiya Siksha Sadan, Gulavati, was not proved. 11. Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and learned AGA have vehemently opposed the submissions, but could not dispute the aforesaid contentions. 12. This Court finds that before the Juvenile Justice Board, the revisionist was not issued any notice to appear and object to application made by the father of the opposite party no.2. The Apex Court in the case of of Manoj Vs. State of Harayana and others passed in Criminal Appeal No. 207 (2022) has held that the plea of juvenility has to be raised in a bonafide and fruitful manner. This issue can only be determined after hearing both the parties which has not been done in this case. 13. Accordingly, the judgments and orders passed by both the courts below are hereby set aside. CRLR No. 4176 of 2024 2 14. The revision is allowed. 15. The Juvenile Justice Board, Bulandshahar, is directed to decide the issue of juvenility of opposite party no.2 in accordance with law and after affording opportunity of hearing to the revisionist-complainant within period of two months from the receipt of copy of this order from the Registrar (Compliance) of this court or from either of the parties, whichever is earlier. 16. Registrar(Compliance) of this Court is directed to communicate this order to the Juvenile Justice Board within period of one week. October 27, 2025 Abhishek CRLR No. 4176 of 2024 3 (Siddharth,J.) Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad