KUMARI RANJANA YADAV Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Parcha filed by Sri Manish Tiwary and Sri A.K. Awasthi on behalf of opposite party No. 2 is taken on record.

(2.) Learned Additional Sessions Judge relied upon Rule 12 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 (here-in-after referred to as the 'Rules') and came to the conclusion that the date of birth recorded in the High School Certificate is conclusive and accordingly opposite party No. 2 was declared to be a juvenile in conflict with law. Feeling aggrieved, the complainant has come up before this Court in this revision.

(3.) It is submitted by learned counsel for the complainant-revisionist that no application was moved on behalf of opposite party No. 2 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge for declaring him to be a juvenile and, therefore, learned Additional Sessions Judge was not justified in holding an inquiry under Section 7A of the Act. It was further submitted that even if the plea of juvenility of opposite party No. 2 was raised before learned Additional Sessions Judge at the time of hearing of the bail application, learned Additional Sessions Judge should have made an inquiry as contemplated by Section 7A of the Act and should have gone deeper into the evidence and opportunity of hearing by leading evidence should have been provided to the complainant, the State as well as the accused but no such action was taken by the Court below.