HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 7559 of 2025 Court No. - 84 HON'BLE JAI PRAKASH TIWARI, J. 1. Heard Sri Sheetala Prasad Pandey, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Rakesh Kumar, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2/informant and Sri Rajeev Kumar Singh, learned AGA for the State and perused the entire material available on record. 2. The present criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist to set aside the impugned order dated 30.08.2025 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Sant Kabir Nagar in Criminal Appeal No. 43 of 2022 (X. Minor vs. State of U.P.), as well as order dated 12.10.2022 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Sant Kabir Nagar in Report No. 61 of 2022 [State vs. M.A. (imagery name)], arising out of Case Crime No. 52 of 2022, under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and Section 5/6 POCSO Act, P.S. Belharkala, District Sant Kabir Nagar. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the revisionist that brief facts of the case are that on 18.03.2022, an F.I.R. was lodged by opposite party No. 2 against the revisionist with the allegation that on 16.03.2022, the revisionist had enticed away his minor daughter. It is further submitted that after the recovery of the victim, her statement was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., wherein she clearly stated that she had voluntarily gone with the revisionist and that there was a love affair between them. It is next submitted that the family member of the victim produced her educational certificate, in which her date of birth is recorded as "21.02.2007". Learned counsel further submits that the Investigating Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Sheetala Prasad Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Rakesh Kumar, G.A. X Minor .....Revisionist(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Opposite Party(s) Officer, without conducting a proper investigation, submitted a charge sheet against the revisionist under Sections 363, 366, and 376 I.P.C., and Section 5/6 of the POCSO Act, Police Station Belharkala, District Sant Kabir Nagar. It is also argued that the revisionist is an illiterate person and does not possess any educational certificate, therefore, on the basis of the Radiological Report, his age was determined to be 17 years, and he was declared a juvenile by the Juvenile Justice Board vide order dated 27.07.2022. It is further submitted that no remedy was availed against the said order, and thus, it has attained finality. Thereafter, an enquiry was conducted under Section 15 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, and the Juvenile Justice Board, vide order dated 12.10.2022, held that there was a need to try the revisionist as an adult and transferred the case to the Children’s Court for trial. It is further submitted that the revisionist was released on bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Sant Kabir Nagar, vide order dated 15.09.2022. Aggrieved against the order dated 12.10.2022, the revisionist preferred an appeal before the learned District and Sessions Judge, Sant Kabir Nagar. However, the said appeal was heard and dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO), Sant Kabir Nagar, vide order dated 30.08.2025, without properly considering the facts and circumstances of the case. It is submitted that the courts below failed to consider the material facts and circumstances and passed the impugned orders in a most mechanical manner, which is not sustainable in the eyes of law. It is further submitted that the questions put to the revisionist by the Juvenile Justice Board were inadequate to assess his mental and physical capacity to commit such an offence, as well as his ability to understand the consequences thereof in the situation in which the alleged act occurred. Therefore, the order passed by the learned Juvenile Justice Board is not sustainable in the eyes of law. It is also submitted that the courts below failed to consider that both the revisionist and the victim were aged about 16–17 years and had left their homes in heat of passion, and that no offence was committed by the revisionist. Further, it has not been considered that, according to the medical report, the age of the revisionist at the time of the alleged occurrence was 16 years, 10 months, and 9 days. As per the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, a CRLR No. 7559 of 2025 2 margin of one year ought to be given, and thus, the revisionist would be below 16 years of age at the time of the incident. Therefore, no order under Sections 15 and 18 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 ought to have been passed against him. It is lastly submitted that the revisionist has no criminal history apart from the present case. The findings recorded by the courts below are contrary to the Social Investigation Report and are based on mere surmises and conjectures. Further, while passing the impugned orders, the learned court concerned as well as learned Juvenile Justice Board have not applied their judicial mind in passing the impugned orders. Lastly, he prays that the impugned orders passed by the courts below are liable to be set aside by this Court. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 as well as learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer for setting aside the impugned orders and submitted that the order passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, which has been affirmed by the appellate court is in consonance with law. It is next submitted by them that no interference is required by this Court and the present criminal revision is liable to be dismissed. 5. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties and learned AGA for the State and perused the entire material available on record. 6. As per the medical report, the age of the juvenile on the date of the alleged incident was determined by the Board to be 16 years, 10 months, and 09 days. The applicant/revisionist was declared a juvenile by the Board vide order dated 27.07.2022. Thereafter, an inquiry and preliminary assessment were conducted by the Board under Section 15 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, as the alleged offence falls within the category of a “heinous offence.” As defined under Section 2(33) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, a “heinous offence” includes offences for which the minimum punishment prescribed under the Indian Penal Code or any other law for the time being in force is imprisonment for seven years or more. Pursuant to this, the Board, vide order dated 12.10.2022, and after considering the reports submitted by the expert panel, including an experienced clinical psychologist and psycho-social workers, transferred CRLR No. 7559 of 2025 3 the matter to the concerned Children’s Court. The Board found that on the date of occurrence, the juvenile was above 16 years of age and upon consideration of the psychologist’s report and the Social Investigation Report, and in view of the provisions contained in Sections 15 and 18 of the Act, directed transfer of the case under Section 18(3) of the Juvenile Justice Act for trial of the juvenile as an adult before the competent court. 7. An appeal was also preferred by the revisionist before the First Appellate Court, i.e., the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Sant Kabir Nagar. The Appellate Court, vide order dated 30.08.2025, dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order dated 12.10.2022 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board. 8. The main contention relates to the provisions of Sections 15 and 18(3) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. 9. Here, it would be useful to reproduce the relevant provisions contained in Section 15 of the Act regarding the preliminary assessment into heinous offences by Board, which reads as under:- "Section 15. Preliminary assessment into heinous offences by Board.—(1) In case of a heinous offence alleged to have been committed by a child, who has completed or is above the age of sixteen years, the Board shall conduct a preliminary assessment with regard to his mental and physical capacity to commit such offence, ability to understand the consequences of the offence and the circumstances in which he allegedly committed the offence, and may pass an order in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (3) of section 18: Provided that for such an assessment, the Board may take the assistance of experienced psychologists or psycho-social workers or other experts. Explanation.—For the purposes of this section, it is clarified that preliminary assessment is not a trial, but is to assess the capacity of such child to commit and understand the consequences of the alleged offence. (2) Where the Board is satisfied on preliminary assessment that the matter should be disposed of by the Board, then the Board shall follow the procedure, as far as may be, for trial in summons case under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974): Provided that the order of the Board to dispose of the matter shall be appealable under sub-section (2) of CRLR No. 7559 of 2025 4 section 101: Provided further that the assessment under this section shall be completed within the period specified in section 14." Further, Section 18(3), which reads as under:- "Section 18(3). Where the Board after preliminary assessment under section 15 pass an order that there is a need for trial of the said child as an adult, then the Board may order transfer of the trial of the case to the Children’s Court having jurisdiction to try such offences." 10. In the present case, the learned Juvenile Justice Board concerned conducted the preliminary assessment and, after considering the Social Investigation Report and the report of the expert panel passed the impugned order dated 12.10.2022. It is also evident from the record that the Appellate Court examined the matter and affirmed the order of the Board transferring the case to the Children’s Court under the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. 11. From the above discussion, this Court finds that the preliminary assessment conducted by the Board was as per the norms and procedure provided under the J.J. Act, 2015 and model rules. Before passing the impugned order, the concerned J.J. Board has considered the report submitted by the expert panel regarding the conduct and behaviour of the child. So, there is no illegality, perversity, or error in the impugned orders, therefore, no interference by this Court is warranted. Consequently, the present criminal revision is liable to be dismissed. 12. Accordingly, the instant criminal revision lacks merit and is hereby dismissed. April 7, 2026 Brijesh CRLR No. 7559 of 2025 5 (Jai Prakash Tiwari,J.) Digitally signed by :- BRIJESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad