HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3537 of 2025 Court No. - 47 HON'BLE SIDDHARTH, J. Heard Sri Purushottam Dixit; learned counsel for the revisionist; Sri Anurag Shukla, learned counsel for informant; learned AGA for State and perused the photostat copy of trial court record. This revision has been filed against the judgment and order dated 13.12.2024, passed by Sessions Judge, Etawah, in Criminal Misc. Case No. 481 of 2024 arising out of case crime no. 49/2022, under section 376 A.B. of I.P.C. and 5m/6 of POCSO Act, Police Station- Badhpura, District- Etawah. The Juvenile Justice Board, Etawah, vide order dated 14.12.2022 declared the revisionist as juvenile since his age was found to be about 18 years in his medical report. By the order dated 07.01.2023 the revisionist was subjected to preliminary assessment as per section 15 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children), Act, 2015. Taking the help of the psychologist, it was found that the revisionist was capable of understanding the consequences of his act of rape of minor girl aged about three and a half years and record of his trial was directed to be placed before the Children's Court for trial as per order dated 07.01.2023 of the Juvenile Justice Board as an adult as per section 18(3) of the Act. The order dated 07.01.2023 was not challenged within time and an appeal alongwith delay condonation application, registered as Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 481/2024 was preferred before the Sessions Judge, Etawah, by the revisionist. Sessions Court found that the order dated 07.01.2023 regarding the preliminary assessment of the revisionist under section 15 by the Juvenile Justice Board has attained the finality and now beleted appeal has been preferred praying for condonation of delay of 602 days in filing of the appeal and hence the delay condonation application of the revisionist was rejected. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that it is well settled that only on account of delay the valuable rights of the revisionist could not have been defeated. He was Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Jitendra Kumar, Keshav Hari Dixit, Purushottam Dixit Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Anurag Shukla, G.A. Xyz Minor .....Revisionist(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Opposite Party(s) required to be heard by the appellate court against the order dated 07.01.2023 making preliminary assessment of revisionist under section 15 of the Act. Learned counsel for the respondents have vehemently opposed the prayer and has submitted that order passed by the appellate court is in accordance with law and does not deserves to be interfered by this Court. After hearing the rival submissions, this Court finds that the preliminary assessment of the revisionist under section 15 regarding commission of heinous offence was done on 07.01.2023 by the Juvenile Justice Board, Etawah. In the intervening period of 602 days the revisionist became further mature and even if the Board is directed by the appellate court to conduct fresh preliminary assessment that would be barred by section 14/15 of the Act, since only three months time is provided for the same from the date of appearance of the accused before the court. This Court further finds that the revisionist has committed heinous offence of rape of three and a half years old female child therefore, he cannot be permitted to take undue advantage of law. In view of the above, the order passed by the court below is hereby confirmed. The revision is dismissed. September 25, 2025 Abhishek CRLR No. 3537 of 2025 2 (Siddharth,J.) Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad