VIKAS Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed by the accused u/S 102 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred as act, 2015) against the order dtd. 30/6/2023, passed by Special Judge (POCSO Act), Dharampuri, Distt. - Dhar, whereby the learned trial Court had rejected an application filed by the petitioner, wherein he claimed that at the time of the incident, he was a child below 18 years of age. Therefore, the criminal case pending against the petitioner was requested to be transferred to the Juvenile Justice Board (hereinafter referred as JJ Board).

(2.) Facts of the case in brief are that a Special case No.11/2023, offence punishable u/S 366, 376(2)(n), 344 and 506(II) of IPC and S. 5(l)/6 of POCSO Act, 2012 is pending against the petitioner. On 30/6/2023, the petitioner had filed an application, wherein he claimed that at the time of the incident, he was below 18 years of age. Therefore, the criminal case pending against him should be transferred to the JJ Board. After hearing both the parties, the trial Court had rejected the application on the same day.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is perverse and bad in law. It is submitted that as provided u/S 9(2) of the act, 2015, it was a mandate for the learned trial Court to inquire the age of the petitioner. But without commencing an inquiry, the learned trial Court had rejected the application. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.