JUDGMENT : BUDI HABUNG, J. Heard Mr. P. Taffo, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. T. Ete, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent No.1 and Mr. M. Toni, learned counsel for the respondent No.2. 2. This criminal revision petition under Section 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, has been preferred by the petitioner, assailing the legality, propriety, and correctness of the impugned order dated 01.07.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge (POCSO), Yupia, in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 122/2025 in POCSO Case No. 26/2019 arising out of Women P.S. Case No. 17/2019, whereby the learned Trial Court has refused the petitioner’s prayer for determination of the age of the victim. 3 . The petitioner has also assailed the order dated 16.09.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge (POCSO), Yupia, in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 197/2025 in POCSO Case No. 26/2019 arising out of Women P.S. Case No. 17/2019, whereby the petitioners application under section 348 BNSS (corresponding to section 311 Cr.P.C) seeking a recall and further examination of prosecution witnesses/victim XYZ (PW-4) and Smti Mary Megu (PW-2) and summoning and examination of Shri Ronga Megu, father of the alleged victim was summarily rejected. 4. The contention and grievance of the petitioner is that, despite a specific application under Section 34(2) of the POCSO Act, 2012, the learned Trial Court failed to determine and record a finding with regard to the age of the victim in terms of Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, and Rule 54(18)(iv) of the Juvenile Justice Rules, 2016, before proceeding further with the trial. The further contention of the petitioner is that his request for recall of the named prosecution witnesses for re-examination/cross examination has been rejected. 5. The record of the Trial Court has been produced, and perused. 6. From the record, it appears that the learned Trial Court, by an order dated 12.06.2025, had already directed the production of relevant documents for determination of the age of the victim in terms of Section 94 of the JJ Act. Pursuant to the said direction, the father of the victim produced the Class X pass certificate on 01.07.2025, wherein, the age of the victim is reflected. However, despite such production, no determination or finding as to the actual age of the victim was recorded. Pursuant to the said direction, the father of the victim produced the Class X pass certificate on 01.07.2025, wherein, the age of the victim is reflected. However, despite such production, no determination or finding as to the actual age of the victim was recorded. Instead, the case was posted for final arguments fixing on 22.08.2025 and thereafter proceeded towards judgment. 7. The provision under Section 34(2) of the POCSO Act is reproduced below: “Procedure in case of commission of offence by child and determination of age by Special Court. (2) If any question arises in any proceeding before the Special Court whether a person is a child or not, such question shall be determined by the Special Court after satisfying itself about the age of such person and it shall record in writing its reasons for such determination.” 8. The relevant provision under Section 94 of the JJ Act is reproduced herein below: “94. Presumption and determination of age- (1) Where, it is obvious to the Committee or the Board, based on the appearance of the person brought before it under any of the provisions of this Act (other than for purpose of giving evidence) that the said person is a child, the Committee or the Board shall record such observation stating the age of the child as nearly as may be and proceed with the inquiry under Section 14 or Section 36, as the case may be, without waiting for further confirmation of the age. (2) In Case, the Committee or the Board has reasonable grounds for doubt regarding whether the person brought before it is a child or not, the Committee or the Board, as the case may be, shall undertake the process of age determination by seeking evidence by obtaining- i. The date of birth certificate from the school, or the matriculation or equivalent certificate from the concerned examination Board, if available; and in the absence thereof; ii. The birth certificate given by a corporation or a municipal authority or a panchayat; iii. And only in the absence of (i) and (ii) above, age shall be determined by an ossification test or any other latest medical age determination test conducted on the orders of the Committee of the board: Provided such age determination test conducted on the order of the Committee or the Board shall be completed within fifteen days from the date of such order.” 9. Rule 54(18)(iv) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2016, being relevant is also reproduced below: “Rule 54 (18) (iv) of the JJ Rule, provides that for the determination of the victim, in relation to offences against children under the Act, the same procedures mandated for the Board and the Committee under Section 94 of the Act to be followed.” 10. In view of the aforesaid statutory mandate under Section 34(2) of the POCSO Act, which requires the learned Special Court to determine the age of the victim when such an issue arises, and the procedure prescribed under Section 94 of the JJ Act, the learned Trial Court ought to have recorded a clear finding regarding the age of the victim based on the materials produced on record. 11. Mr. Taffo, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the law laid down in Rishipal Singh Solanki vs. State of U.P. , reported in (2022) 8 SCC 602 , and Pitam Lamnio vs. State of Arunachal Pradesh , reported in 2023 (0) Supreme (GAU) 766 (Criminal Revision Petition No. 12/2023), wherein the necessity of following the statutory procedure for age determination has been emphasized. 12. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that failure to comply with the prescribed statutory mandate amounts to a procedural irregularity affecting the legality of the proceedings. 13. In view of the above, this Court finds sufficient force in the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 14 . However, insofar as the prayer for recall and further cross-examination of prosecution witnesses (PW-2), as well as re-examination of witnesses, is concerned the record shows that the application filed by the petitioner under 348 of BNSS seeking recalling and re-examination of said prosecution witnesses has been rejected amongst other on the ground that ample opportunity was given to the petitioner and the said application was filed by the petitioner only to delay the trial and to frustrate the cause of justice. In this regard, this Court also noticed from the record that the witnesses have already been duly examined and cross-examined. Record indicates that adequate opportunity was provided to the petitioner and the case has reached the stage of final arguments. Further, no sufficient or cogent ground has been made out to reopen the evidence at such an advanced stage. In this regard, this Court also noticed from the record that the witnesses have already been duly examined and cross-examined. Record indicates that adequate opportunity was provided to the petitioner and the case has reached the stage of final arguments. Further, no sufficient or cogent ground has been made out to reopen the evidence at such an advanced stage. Accordingly, and for the reasons stated above, the revision petition is partly allowed with the following directions: i. The impugned orders dated 01.07.2025 is set aside to the limited extent of non-determination of the age of the victim. ii. The learned Special Judge is directed to consider the materials/documents already brought on record, including the Class X pass certificate produced, and to pass a reasoned order determining the age of the victim strictly in terms of Section 34(2) of the POCSO Act read with Section 94 of the JJ Act and Rule 54(18)(iv) of the JJ Rules before proceeding further with the trial. iii. Such determination shall be made expeditiously, preferably within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of this order. iv. The prayer for recall/re-examination of the witnesses is rejected. v. Thereafter, the learned Trial Court shall proceed with the case in accordance with law from the stage at which it presently stands. 15. With the above observations and directions, this criminal revision petition stands disposed of.