- (1.) The instant criminal revision has been preferred against the order dated 29.06.2015, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, District Maharajganj in Criminal Misc. Application No. 57 of 2015 (State v. Rajendra & Punnu) in Case Crime No. 225 of 2015, under Sections 363, 366A, 376, I.P.C. and 3/4, POCSO Act, P.S. Nichlaul, District Maharajganj, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge has declared the opposite party No. 2 as a juvenile in conflict with law.
(2.) Heard learned counsel for the revisionists; learned A.G.A. representing the State and perused the record.
(3.) Learned counsel for the revisionist has challenged the legality and correctness of the order impugned by contending that the court below has passed the order in an arbitrary manner without appreciating the evidence available on record and ignoring the provisions of Rule 12(3) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007. Learned counsel has contended that the opposite party No. 2 had prepared forged documents for the purpose of taking the benefit of Section 7A of Juvenile Justice Act, but the court below, without applying its judicial mind and without keeping in view this aspect of the matter, has passed the impugned order, which is liable to be set aside.;