DILSHAD AHMAD Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, Shri Vijay Prakash Dwivedi, learned AGA for the State and perused the material available on record.

(2.) The instant Criminal Revision under Sec. 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 has been filed against the judgment and order dtd. 28/2/2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Sultanpur in Special Sessions Trial No. 537 of 2018 arising out of case crime No. 423 of 2017, U/s 354(B) IPC and Sec. 17/18 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012, Police Station- Lambhua, District- Sultanpur, whereby the application for declaring the revisionist as juvenile in conflict with law has been rejected.

(3.) Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the revisionist preferred an application for declaring his juvenility before the trial court U/s 9 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (in short "the Act, 2015"). The trial court recorded the findings that the family register issued by the Panchayat is not admitted as a proof of age under the provision of Sec. 94 of the Act, 2015, which is contrary to the view held by the Apex Court. But the said application of the revisionist was rejected by the learned trial court without appreciating the evidence available on record and without observing the procedure as prescribed U/s 9 and 94 of the Act, 2015 on 28/2/2023. The said Sec. 9 and 94 of the Act, 2015 read as under: