RAJ MANI CHAUHAN,J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State as well as perused the documents available on record.
(2.) THIS petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code') has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the impugned order dated 06.9.2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 8, Raebareli in Sessions Trial No. 91/1988 (State Vs. Khannu and Others) whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge has rejected the application 64-Kha moved by the accused for declaring him to be juvenile. The only question involves in this revision is the legality of the impugned order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 8, Raebareli in Sessions Trial No. 91/1988 (State Vs. Khannu and Others) whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge has rejected the application moved by the accused for treating him to be juvenile. Therefore, with the consent of learned Additional Government Advocate this petition is being disposed of finally without issuing notice to the Opposite Party No. 2 to curtail the delay in trial of the Sessions Trial pending against the accused-petitioner before the Trial Court.
(3.) THE submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that during the pendency of the trial the accused moved an application for declaring him to be juvenile which has been rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge mainly on the ground that the sessions trial pending against the accused is one of the oldest session trials and the accused had moved the application at a belated stage, it appears that he just to delay the hearing of the trial had moved the application.;