JUDGMENT D.K. Sinha, J.- The present criminal revision is directed against the order impugned dated 22.3.2007, passed by 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh in S.T. No.142 of 2002 arising out of Ramgarh P.S. Case NO.306 of 2001, whereby and whereunder, the learned Trial Judge refused to transfer the case of the petitioner to the Juvenile Justice Board, Ranchi on the claim of the petitioner that he was juvenile at the relevant time of alleged occurrence. 2. Petitioner was facing trial for the charge under Sections 366-A/376 of the Indian Penal Code and after examination of the prosecution witnesses when he was examined and his statement was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the petitioner disclosed his age to be 22 years and thereby took the plea of juvenile whereas Trial Court has assessed his age to be of 24 years. 3. Learned counsel urged before the Court that even if the age of the petitioner was assessed as 24 years by the Trial Court on 10.1.2007 while recording the statement of the petitioner under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure he was about 18 years of age on the date of alleged occurrence i.e. on 17.10.2001 with minor variation of plus-minus one year as settled by the Apex Court. 4. 4. According to learned counsel, certain amendment was made by insertion of new Section 7-A. in Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 which speaks as follows: 7-A. Procedure to be followed when claim of juvenile is raised before any Court.-(1) Whenever a claim for juvenility is raised before any Court or a Court is of the opinion that an accused person was a juvenile on the date of commission of the offence, the Court shall make an inquiry, take such evidence as may be necessary (but not an affidavit) so as to determine the age of such person, and shall record a finding whether the person is a juvenile or a child or not, stating his age as nearly as may be: Provided that a claim of juvenility may be raised before any Court and it shall be recognized at any stage, even after final disposal of the case, and such claim shall be determined in terms of the provisions contained in this Act and the rules made thereunder, even if the juvenile has ceased to be so on or before the date of commencement of this Act. . (2) If the Court finds a person to be juvenile on the date of commission of the offence under sub-section (1). it shall forward the juvenile to the Board for passing appropriate order, and the sentence if any passed by a Court shall be deemed to have no effect." 5. Learned counsel further urged that the Trial Court below failed to take into consideration the newly added provisions of law, whereby and whereunder, the petitioner had taken the plea of juvenile but . without following the procedure as laid down under Section 7-A(1) of the Act, passed the impugned order only on the ground that the petitioner at earlier stage i.e. on 6.11.2001 had filed a petition stating therein that he was legally married husband of the victim girl and at the time . of marriage petitioner was aged about 23 years whereas victim was ,aged about 19 years and the marriage between the petitioner and the victim Sital Devi was solemnized in accordance with Hindu rites and customs on 2.9.2001. 6. of marriage petitioner was aged about 23 years whereas victim was ,aged about 19 years and the marriage between the petitioner and the victim Sital Devi was solemnized in accordance with Hindu rites and customs on 2.9.2001. 6. Having regard to the facts and .circumstances of the case, I find that the law has been clearly laid down by bringing about amendment and insertion of Section .7-A of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 that the petitioner can raise the defence of• juvenile at any stage of the trial or appeal and upon such plea what the Court is required to do is to hold inquiry. But in this case without holding any inquiry the prayer of the petitioner was rejected by treating the petition of the petitioner dated 6.11.2001 as estoppel which is not maintainable. 7. In the circumstances, I find that the order impugned dated 22.3.2007 cannot sustain and hence it is set aside with a direction to the Trial Court to inquire the matter under Section 7-A of the Act and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law before proceeding in the Sessions Trial. 8. With these observations, this criminal revision is allowed.