Judgment Chandramauli Kr.Prasad, J. 1. This application has been filed for quashing a portion of the order dated 9.3.2005, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Banka in Sessions Trial No. 436 of 1992 arising out of Katoria P.S. Case No. 139 of 1991 (G.R.No. 1086 of 1991), whereby the prayer made by the petitioner to transfer the case to the Juvenile Justice Beard for ascertaining his age, has been rejected. 2. In view of the order which I propose to pass in this application, it is inexpedient to give in detail the facts of the case. Suffice it to say that the petitioner is an accused in Katoria P.S. Case No. 139 of 1991 registered under Sections 302 and 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 . He preferred application before the Sessions Judge for grant of bail. While rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for grant of bail, the learned Sessions Judge, directed for holding an inquiry in regard to the claim made by him that he is a juvenile. 3. It seems that the petitioner was examined by the Civil Assistant Surgeon, Banka on 5.11.1991 which assessed his age to be 15 years. 4. When the matter came up before the learned Magistrate for the purpose of ascertaining the claim made by the petitioner, it adjourned the case from time to time at the request of the petitioner. Petitioner did not take any step in that. Ultimately, by order dated 22.7.1992, prayer of the petitioner was rejected not on merit but on the ground that he has not taken any step. 5. Thereafter, when the matter was pending for trial, he filed application for transfer of the case to the court constituted under the provisions of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. By the impugned order, said prayer has been rejected. 6. Mr. Krishna Mohan, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submits that the claim of the petitioner that he was a juvenile at the time of commission of offence, had not been adjudicated on merit and it is a fit case in which the Court competent be asked to adjudicate the claim of the petitioner. He submits that such a valuable right of the petitioner may not be defeated on technical ground. 7. Dr. Maya Nand Jha, Additional Public Prosecutor appears on behalf of the State. 8. He submits that such a valuable right of the petitioner may not be defeated on technical ground. 7. Dr. Maya Nand Jha, Additional Public Prosecutor appears on behalf of the State. 8. Having heard learned Counsel for the party, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case in which the claim of the petitioner deserves to be examined by the Juvenile Justice Board in accordance with law. For that purpose, petitioner should appear before the concerned Juvenile Justice Board within three weeks from today. The Juvenile Justice Board be shall decide the claim in accordance with law within six weeks from the date of appearance of the petitioner and forward the order to the learned Judge, in seisin of Sessions Trial No. 436 of 1992. The learned Judge, on receipt of the aforesaid order, shall pass order In accordance with law. 9. This application is allowed to the extent indicated above.