ANAND SINGH Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned Additional Government Advocate, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.2 and perused the record.

(2.) This criminal revision has been filed against the judgment and order dated 03.04.2014, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Lucknow, by which the order of the Juvenile Justice Board, Lucknow dated 14.02.2014 has been set-aside and the opposite party no.2 has been declared as juvenile.

(3.) Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that there is difference of only six months and one day in the age of the proposed juvenile and his brother, which is not practically possible. It has also been submitted that the Juvenile Justice Board has rightly held that opposite party no.2 was not juvenile on the date of incident, but learned Sessions Judge without any ground has set-aside the said judgment of Juvenile Justice Board. It has also been submitted that the first school attended was not a recognized school, therefore, the age mentioned in that school cannot be taken into consideration.