ORDER Heard Sri Rakesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Akshay Lal Pandity, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor. 2. The sole petitioner , while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has prayed for quashing of an order dated 30.06.2011 passed by the learned 1st Addl.Sessions Judge, East Champaran at Motihari in Sessions Trial No.198 of 1993( Excise Case no.56 of 1992), whereby the learned Sessions Judge has rejected the petition filed on behalf of the petitioner for sending his case record to the Juvenile Justice Board on the ground that on the date of occurrence, the petitioner was juvenile within the meaning of Section-2(k) under the provisions of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act,2000 (hereinafter referred to as “the Juvenile Justice Act”). Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner along with a Certificate issued by the Principal to show the date of birth of the petitioner as 23.02.1977 claiming as juvenile on the date of occurrence filed a petition before the court below under Section 7-A of the Juvenile Justice Act. 3. It was submitted that as per the Certificate issued by the School, the petitioner was within 16 years of age and, as such, his case was required to be referred to the Juvenile Justice Board, but the learned Sessions Judge without discussing the age or conducting any enquiry or referring the matter for conducting an enquiry to the competent authority summarily rejected the petition on the ground that the case, in which the petitioner was being prosecuted was for the offence under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act and case was instituted in 1993. It was further submitted that the learned court below has rejected the petition only on the plea that the petition was filed with a view to delay conclusion of the trial. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of amended provision i.e. Section 7-A of the Juvenile Justice Act, plea of juvenility can be raised at any stage even at the stage of appeal and it is to be seen as to what was the age at the time of occurrence. On the date of occurrence, as per Certificate claimed by the petitioner, he was a juvenile and, as such, the learned court below was required to refer the matter to the Juvenile Justice Board. On the date of occurrence, as per Certificate claimed by the petitioner, he was a juvenile and, as such, the learned court below was required to refer the matter to the Juvenile Justice Board. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (3) PLJR (SC) 123 (Hari Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr). 5. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer of the petitioner and submits that since the case is at the final stage, the learned court below has rightly rejected the petition. 6. Besides hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have also perused the impugned order. Primarily, the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge is not tenable in the eye of law. Once the provision i.e. Section 7-A of the Juvenile Justice Act provides for raising a claim of juvenility at any stage, the learned court below was required to examine the petition and pass appropriate order. Had there been any dispute in respect of the date of birth, the matter would have been referred under the provisions contained in Rule-12 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules (hereinafter referred to as “the Juvenile Justice Rules”). Had there been any dispute in respect of the date of birth, the matter would have been referred under the provisions contained in Rule-12 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules (hereinafter referred to as “the Juvenile Justice Rules”). For just decision in the case, it would be appropriate to quote Section 7-A of the Juvenile Justice Act as well as Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice Rules respectively as follows: [Section7-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 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 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] Rule12. Procedure to be followed in determination of age.–(1) In every case concerning a child or a juvenile in conflict with law, the Court or the Board, as the case may be, the Committee referred to in rule 19 of these rules shall determine the age of such juvenile or child or a juvenile in conflict with law within a period of thirty days from the date of making of the application for that purpose. (2) The Court or the Board or, as the case may be, the Committee shall decide the juvenility or otherwise of the juvenile or the child or, as the case may be, the juvenile in conflict with law, prima facie on the basis of physical appearances or documents, if available, and sent him to the observation home or in jail. (3) In every case concerning a child or juvenile in conflict with law, the age determination inquiry shall be conducted by the Court or the Board or, as the case may be, the Committee by seeking evidence by obtaining– (a)(i) the matriculation or equivalent certificate, if available; and in the absence whereof; (ii) the date of birth certificate from the school (other than a play school) first attended; and in the absence whereof; (iii) the birth certificate given by a corporation or a municipal authority or a panchayat (b) and only in the absence of either (i), (ii) or (iii) of clause (a) above, the medical opinion will be sought from a duly constituted Medical Board, which will declare the age of the Juvenile or child. In case exact assessment of the age cannot be done , the Court or the Board or, as the case may be, the Committee, for the reasons to be recorded by them, may, if considered necessary, give benefit to the child or juvenile by considering his/her age on lower side within the margin of one year, and, while passing order in such case shall, after taking into consideration such evidence as may be available, or the medical opinion, as the case may be, record a finding in respect of his age and either of the evidence specified in any of the clauses (a) (i),(ii), (iii) or in the absence whereof, clause (b) shall be the conclusive proof of the age as regards such child or the juvenile in conflict with law. (4) If the age of a juvenile or child or the juvenile in conflict with law is found to be below 18 years on the date of offence, on the basis of any of the conclusive proof specified in sub-rule (3), the Court or the Board or, as the case may be, the Committee shall in writing pass an order stating the age and declaring the status of juvenility or otherwise, for the purpose of the Act and these rules and a copy of the order shall be given to such juvenile or the person concerned. (5) Save and except where, further inquiry or otherwise is required, inter alia, in terms of section 7-A , Section 64 of the Act and these rules, no further inquiry shall be conducted by the Court or the Board after examining and obtaining the certificate or any other documentary proof referred to in sub-rule (3) of this rule. (6) The provisions contained in this rule shall also apply to those disposed off cases, where the status of juvenility has not been determined in accordance with the provisions contained in sub-rule(3) and the Act, requiring dispensation of the sentence under the Act for passing appropriate order in the interest of the juvenile in conflict with law.” 7. In view of the aforesaid statutory provision as well as law laid down in Hari Ram’s case (supra), the Court is of the opinion that the learned Sessions Judge has committed an error in summarily rejecting the petition filed by the petitioner. 8. Accordingly, the order impugned is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the court below to re-consider and pass appropriate order in accordance with law. With above observation and direction, the petition stands allowed. ?