Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:17290 Court No. - 78 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4626 of 2023 Revisionist :- Jawahar Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Chandra Prakash Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J. 1. List revised. 2. Heard Sri Ashutosh Pandey holding brief of Sri Chandra Prakash, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Bade Lal Bind, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record. 3. The present revision under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. read with Section 102 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 has been preferred by the revisionist-Jawahar Singh against the order dated 15.02.2023 passed by Addl. District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Court no.28 Agra in Criminal Juvenile Appeal No.133 of 2022 UPAG010149472022 (Jawahar Singh Vs. Keshav and another) as well as impugned order dated 3.11.2022 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Agra (State Vs. Keshav) arising out of case crime no.19 of 2021, u/s 376 IPC-1860 and Section 5M, 6 of POCSO Act, P.S. Dauki, District Agra declaring the accused/opposite party no.2 juvenile without considering the records. 4. Notice issued to the opposite party nos.2 has been served upon him through legal heir as per office report dated 11.9.2023 but no one appears on behalf of opposite party no.2 despite service of notice. 5. The facts of the case are that the FIR was lodged on 1.2.2021 by Jawahar Singh for offences under Sections 376 IPC and 5m/6 POCSO Act against the revisionist. An application dated 9.5.2022 was moved for declaring the revisionist as juvenile through his father which was allowed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Agra vide order dated 3.11.2022 and the accused was declared as juvenile. An appeal was preferred by the revisionist against the said order dated 3.11.2022 being Criminal Juvenile Appeal No.133 of 2022 which was dismissed vide judgement and order dated 15.2.2023 passed by Special Judge (POCSO Act)/Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Court No.28, Agra and the impugned order dated 3.11.2022 was affirmed. The present revision has thus been filed by the first informant against the said two orders. 6. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that the Juvenile Justice Board and Appellate Court committed an error in declaring the accused-opposite party no.2 as a juvenile inasmuch as the day of admission in the school of which the records are being relied upon was a Sunday and thus the same would go to show that the documents were prepared in a careless manner just in order to benefit the accused. It is submitted that the adhar-card of the accused gives a different year of birth and as such there are two different date of birth. It is submitted that proper procedure was that a medical examination should have been conducted and the same should have been relied by the court concerned. Looking to the facts of the matter it would be proper that the impugned judgement and orders be set-aside and appropriate directions be issued for getting the medical examination of the accused-respondent no.2 conducted and then a declaration regarding his age be done. Hence present revision deserves to be allowed. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer in the revision and submitted that the Juvenile Justice Board by means of a well reasoned order has held that the accused was a juvenile at the time of incident and was aged about 16 years, 3 months and 22 days which was below 18 years and thus he was declared juvenile. Even the appellate court has considered the matter on merits and dismissed the appeal. In so far as the date of birth recorded in the adhar-card is concerned, the same is in no manner prove of date of birth as per guidelines of the Government. There is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned orders and as such the present revision be dismissed. 8. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the Juvenile Justice Board by a reasoned and detailed order dated 3.11.2022 considering the matter on merits has returned a finding that the revisionist is a juvenile. The appellate court wherein the said order was under challenge, has also considered the appeal on merits and given a detailed finding regarding the order impugned therein and did not find any irregularity or illegality in the same and thus dismissed the appeal. In so far as the documents of school regarding age is concerned, there is no finding of any court that the same is forged, bogus and fictitious document. The finding regarding age of the accused- respondent is a well reasoned finding. No ground is made out for interference in the matter by this Court. 9. In view of the above, the present revision is hereby rejected. (Samit Gopal, J.) Order Date :- 6.2.2025/Gaurav Kuls Digitally signed by :- GAURAV KULSHRESTHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad