JUDGMENT Hon’ble M.K. Mittal, J.—This revision No. 446/03, Smt. Lali v. State of U.P. and another, has been filed for setting aside the order dated 21-3-2008 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C. No. 16), Bulandshahr, in Sessions Trial No. 620/97, State v. Naresh and others, under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 302, 201, IPC, P.S. Ahmadgarh, District Bulandshahar, whereby he refused to determine the age of the petitioner on the date of occurrence. 2. Heard Sri Sunil Kumar learned Counsel for the revisionist, learned AGA and perused the material on record. With the consent of the parties learned Counsel the revision is being decided finally at the admission stage. 3. The contention of the learned Counsel for the revisionist is that a First Information Report was lodged by opposite party No. 2 on 20-5-1995 alleging that his daughter and two minor sons were given poison on 18-5-1995. The present revisionist was also one of the accused. The application 89B was filed by the revisionist contending that at the time of the alleged incident she was 16 years old and was juvenile and her case be separated. This application was rejected by order dated 20-1-2003 and a reference of the case of Kallan Singh v. State of U.P., 2002 ACC 13, was made and it was held that it was advisable to proceed according to Section 20 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred as an Act). At that time this Section 20 of the Act provided as under : “Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act all proceedings in respect of a juvenile pending in any Court in any area on the date on which this Act came into force in that area, shall be continued in that Court as if this Act had not been passed and if the Court finds that the juvenile has committed an offence, it shall record such finding and instead of passing any sentence in respect of the juvenile forward the juvenile to the Board which shall pass orders in respect of that juvenile in accordance with the provisions of this Act as if it had been satisfied on inquiry under this Act that the juvenile had committed the offence”. Against that order the revisionist preferred Criminal Revision No. 446/03. However no interim order was passed in that revision. 4. Against that order the revisionist preferred Criminal Revision No. 446/03. However no interim order was passed in that revision. 4. The revisionist filed another application No. 130-B claiming that she was juvenile and that her case be separated and that application was rejected by order dated 13th May, 2005 on the ground that Act came into force on 1st April, 2001 and on that date she was more than 18 years old and the earlier revision filed was still pending. It appears that the revisionist filed a revision against the order dated 13th May, 2005 also but learned Counsel for the revisionist during argument submitted that no revision has been filed against that order. 5. The Act was amended in the year 2006 and a fresh application under Article 179B was filed by the revisionist praying that her case be separated and her age on the date of the alleged offence be determined. This application has been rejected by the impugned order on the ground that the Court has already decided the applications filed by the revisionist and it had no power to review its order under Section 362, Cr.P.C. It has also been mentioned that the age of the revisionist has been determined by order dated 13th May, 2005 and the matter is very old i.e. of the year 1995 and only dilatory tactics are being adopted by the accused persons. Learned Counsel for the revisionist has contended that in the year 2006 Section 7A and Explanation to Section 20 have been added and in view of the changed legal position the juvenile is entitled to get his age determined on the date of the incident and this aspect was not considered by the learned trial Court and the impugned order is not a legal order. 6. In order to appreciate this contention it will be useful to refer newly added Section 7A. 6. In order to appreciate this contention it will be useful to refer newly added Section 7A. It reads as under : "7-A. Procedure to be followed when claim of juvenility is raised before any Court.—(1) Whenever a claim of 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 enquiry, 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 recognised 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 a 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. Explanation as added to Section 20 reads as under : In all pending cases including trial, revision, appeal or any other criminal proceedings in respect of a juvenile in conflict with law, in any Court, the determination of juvenility of such a juvenile shall be in terms of clause (l) of Section 2, even if the juvenile ceases to be so on or before the date of commencement of this Act and the provisions of this Act shall apply as if the said provisions had been in force for all purposes and at all material times when the alleged offence was committed." 7. A conjoint reading of these two newly added provisions shows that a juvenile can raise the plea of his juvenility at any stage and can get his age determined. As per Section 2(l) of the Act age of juvenile is 18 years. A conjoint reading of these two newly added provisions shows that a juvenile can raise the plea of his juvenility at any stage and can get his age determined. As per Section 2(l) of the Act age of juvenile is 18 years. In the circumstances, the learned Lower Court, in view of the newly added provisions should have decided the question as raised by the revisionist about her age on the date of the alleged incident. In not doing so he has erred and the impugned order is not legal and is to be set aside. 8. The revision No. 964/08 is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge is directed to decide the age of the revisionist on the date of the alleged incident. The learned Judge is further directed to separate the case of the present revisionist and to proceed with the case of other accused persons according to law. The revision No. 446/03 has become infructuous and is dismissed. ————