ORDER By the Court.-Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the State. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that when the petitioner was remanded in connection with Meharma (Balbadda) P.S. Case No. 10 of 2011 which was registered under Sections 25(1b) (A)/26/35 of the Arms Act and also under Section 4/5 of the Explosive Substances Act, an application was filed before the Juvenile Justice Board, Godda for declaring him Juvenile as the date of birth of the petitioner is 10.08.1993 and hence, on the date of occurrence i.e. on 15.01.2011, he was less than 18 years of age. In support of his case, the petitioner also produced the photocopy of the order dated 17.02.2011 passed in G.R. No. 1116 of 2010 under which, the petitioner had been declared as juvenile in connection with other case. In that case, the petitioner had been held juvenile on the basis of an order passed on 7.10.2009 in G.R. No. 699 of 2009 wherein the Court, having examined the Headmaster of the School and reliance on being placed upon the Admission Register and also on the Admit Card issued by the Jharkhand Academic Council, found the date of birth of the petitioner as 10.08.1993. Taking this date of birth, the petitioner was found to be juvenile by the Juvenile Justice Board in connection of instant case which has given rise this application. 3. When the order was challenged before the learned Sessions Judge, Godda in Cr. Appeal No. 34 of 2011, it was set aside on 28.06.2011, holding that the Juvenile Justice Board, without holding the inquiry properly, determined the age of the accused, and as such, it is quite illegal. 4. That order has been challenged to be bad. 5. It is true that the Juvenile Justice Board did not proceed with the inquiry rather placed reliance on an order whereby the petitioner had been declared Juvenile on the basis of the documents produced during inquiry in that case. 6. 4. That order has been challenged to be bad. 5. It is true that the Juvenile Justice Board did not proceed with the inquiry rather placed reliance on an order whereby the petitioner had been declared Juvenile on the basis of the documents produced during inquiry in that case. 6. Since, the petitioner's age, during inquiry, of course, not in connection with this case rather in connection with other case, was found as 10.08.1993, it would have been duplication of work for the Juvenile Justice Board to go for detailed enquiry as the order under which the petitioner had been declared juvenile on the basis of documents and evidences has never been challenged and as such, the appellate Court was not just, in setting aside the order passed by the Juvenile Justice Board. 7. Accordingly, order dated 28.06.2011 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Godda in Cr. Appeal No. 34 0f 2011 is, hereby, set aside. 8. In the result, this application stands dismissed. Application dismissed.