Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:83062 Court No. - 85 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2010 of 2024 Revisionist :- Praveen Kumar @ Pappu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Ashutosh Chaubey,Pramod K. Gupta,Shailendra Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record. 2. The revision was admitted by order dated 30.04.2024 and notice was issued to the opposite party no.2. Taking note of death of opposite party no.2, this court passed an order dated 14.08.2024 permitting the applicant to file an application for impleadment of legal representatives of the deceased party. An application was filed thereafter, which was allowed on 28.11.2024 and notice was issued to the legal representatives of the deceased party. 3. Office report dated 16.01.2025 indicates that notice has been sufficiently served upon the legal representatives of the deceased party. 4. In view of the above, service of notice upon the legal representatives is deemed to be sufficient. 5. No one has put in appearance and argue the matter on behalf of the legal representatives of the deceased informant. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the order impugned rejecting the application for declaration of the applicant as juvenile suffers from manifest error of law, inasmuch as the documents produced by the applicant in support of his claim have not been carefully perused by the court and the application has been rejected only on the ground that a similar application was rejected earlier in different proceedings. 7. Learned AGA submits that learned Sessions Judge has taken note of rejection of an identical application which order has been upheld by this Court by dismissing Criminal Revision No. 5268 of 2009 by order dated 16.12.2016 and, therefore, no error has been committed by the learned Sessions Judge, who has followed the judicial discipline. 8. In this regard, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the aforesaid proceedings relate to a different case in which the revision was dismissed by this Court for want of prosecution and an application seeking recall of an order dated 16.12.2016 is still pending and, even otherwise, the applicant has been convicted in the said proceedings. 9. Be that as it may, the plea that the applicant is a juvenile was based upon certain documents. Learned Sessions Judge has taken note of the fact that the same documents have been produced before him which were earlier produced before the Court, however, the claim of the applicant was not found to be sustainable and, consequently, the application was rejected. The order of rejection has already been upheld by this Court in the aforesaid criminal revision and irrespective of the fact that the revision was dismissed for want of prosecution or on merits or that the same relates to a different case in which the applicant has been convicted, the issue involved is as to whether the applicant's claim for being declared as juvenile is at all sustainable. 10. This Court does not find any fresh material to accept the plea of the applicant and no perversity has been shown to this Court to the effect that the documents produced in different proceedings while raising a claim for declaration of the applicant as juvenile were different. 11. Once the order of the Sessions Court has been upheld by this Court, learned Sessions Judge could not be expected to take a different view of the matter. 12. Consequently, no error is found in the order impugned. The revision is dismissed. Order Date :- 19.5.2025 AKShukla/- Digitally signed by :- ANIL KUMAR SHUKLA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad