JUDGMENT : S. Serto, J. Heard Mr. Robert Laltlana, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and also heard Mr. Lalchhanliana Khiangte, learned counsel appearing for the sole respondent. 2. This is a criminal revision petition filed under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 directed against the Order dated 22.05.2018 of the Court of Session Judge, Aizawl Judicial District passed in Criminal Misc. Application No. 137/2018, arising out of Criminal Appeal No. 4/2018 pending in the same Court. 3. The facts leading to the filing of this petition as submitted by the learned counsel of the petitioners briefly stated are as follows:- Being aggrieved by the order issued by the Chairman, Child Welfare Committee, Aizawl District dated 19.12.2017, the petitioner preferred an appeal, however, since the time limit as provided for the appeal had already expired he filed an application before the Special Court, which is the District & Sessions Judge, Aizawl for condonation of the delay and the same was registered as Criminal Misc. Application No. 137/2018. 4. On 22.05.2018, the learned Sessions Judge, Aizawl Judicial District passed the impugned order in which the Child Welfare Committee was requested to expedite the reassessment so that the same is completed within 2 (two) weeks and to send a report to the Court. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the petitioner has come before this Court challenging the same on two grounds:- (i) That the Sessions Judge, Aizawl District has no jurisdiction to pass any order under Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 while there is a Special Court specially designated under the Act. The learned counsel in support of his submission submitted a Notification dated 27.06.2014, whereby District & Sessions Judge, Aizawl is designated as Special Court under Section 88 Clause 1 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (in short, POCSO Act). The learned counsel also referred to Section 101 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 and sub-section 20 of Section 2 of the same Act. (ii) Secondly, the petitioner have challenged the impugned order on the ground that the prayer of the petitioner in Criminal Misc. Application No. 137/2018 was basically for condonation of delay for filing an appeal but the learned Sessions Judge passed the impugned order on the merit of the appeal which could not have been taken up as yet. (ii) Secondly, the petitioner have challenged the impugned order on the ground that the prayer of the petitioner in Criminal Misc. Application No. 137/2018 was basically for condonation of delay for filing an appeal but the learned Sessions Judge passed the impugned order on the merit of the appeal which could not have been taken up as yet. 5. Mr. Lalchhanliana Khiangte, learned counsel appearing for the sole respondent submits that the learned Sessions Judge, Aizawl is the same person designated as Special Judge under the POCSO Act, 2012, it is by a mistake that in the cause title of the impugned order instead of typing 'Special Judge', the word 'Session Judge' have been typed, therefore, it makes no difference. The learned counsel also submitted that if the petitioner is aggrieved at all by the impugned order, he should have come before this Court on appeal as per provision of Section 101 Clause 5 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 r/w Section 401 Sub-section 4 of CrPC. After having referred to the said provision of law, Mr. Lalchhanliana Khiangte, learned counsel submitted that the instant petition is barred by the provision of law as given therein. 6. On perusal of the Order dated 03.04.2018 of the Court of Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Aizawl passed in Criminal Misc. Application No. 137/2018, it is clear that the application of the petitioner was for condonation of delay. However, on perusal of the Order dated 22.05.2018 (impugned order) which was also passed in the same case, it appears that the learned Sessions Judge has gone beyond the scope and purpose of the application. To appreciate better the two Orders i.e. the Order dated 03.04.2018 and the impugned Order dated 22.05.2018 passed in the Criminal Misc. Application No. 137/2018, are given herein below one after the other:- "IN THE COURT OF ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSION JUDGE AIZAWL JUDICIAL DISTRICT : AIZAWL Crl. Misc. Appl No. 137/2018 A/o Crl. Appeal No. 4/2018 U/s 101 of J.J. (Care & Protection) Act, 2015 Lalchhandami W/o Lalbiakhluna (L) P/A Dinthar-II, Aizawl : Appellant. Versus 1. The Chair Person, Child Welfare Committee, Aizawl Dist, Mizoram. 2. The Member, Child Welfare Committee, Aizawl Dist. Mizoram 3. DCPO, Aizawl Dist. Mizoram. 4. Superintendent, Daffodils Haven, Aizawl, Mizoram: Respondent 4. Superintendent, Daffodils Haven, Aizawl, Mizoram: Respondent Date of Order : 03.04.2018. BEFORE Sh. Liansangzuala, Addl. Versus 1. The Chair Person, Child Welfare Committee, Aizawl Dist, Mizoram. 2. The Member, Child Welfare Committee, Aizawl Dist. Mizoram 3. DCPO, Aizawl Dist. Mizoram. 4. Superintendent, Daffodils Haven, Aizawl, Mizoram: Respondent 4. Superintendent, Daffodils Haven, Aizawl, Mizoram: Respondent Date of Order : 03.04.2018. BEFORE Sh. Liansangzuala, Addl. District & Sessions Judge ORDER This Crl. Misc. is arising out of Crl. Appeal No. 4/18 filed by Lalchhandami of Dinthar-II for condoning a delay in filing the said criminal appeal. Admitted and registered as Crl. Misc. Appln. No. 137/18 A/o Crl. Appeal No. 4/18. Issue notice to the respondents to show cause as to why the delay in filing Crl. Appeal shall not be condoned as prayed for. Fix: 6/04/18 for appearance and W/O if any. Sd/- LIANSANGZUALA Addl. District & Sessions Judge Aizawl Judicial District, Aizawl." "IN THE COURT OF THE SESSIONS JUDGE AIZAWL JUDICIAL DISTRICT: AIZAWL, MIZORAM Crl. Misc. Application No. 137/2018, A/O Crl. Appeal No. 4 of 2018, U/S 101 of J.J. (Care & Protection) Act, 2015 Lalchhandami.. Appellant Versus The Chair person, CWC, Aizawl District And 3 others ..Respondents Date of Order 22.05.2018. BEFORE SHRI JOEL JOSEPH DENGA, Sessions Judge, Aizawl ORDER Parties are present and heard. Seen the Case Investigation Report which was statedly the basis for the placement order issued by the CWC that is the subject of Crl. Appeal No. 4/2018 and this Miscellaneous Application. From the Case Investigation Report it would appear that the findings were based solely on the version of the child's grandmother, Mrs. Thangkimi, without giving the mother, Mrs. Lalchhandami, opportunity to state her case, or taking into account the child's wishes after placing the same on record. It is felt that the proper course, in view of the nature of the case, would be to request the ld. Child Welfare Committee to make a reassessment of the matter after hearing the mother and the child. As the mother, who is present in Court today, submits that she would like to admit the child in a school of her choice for the new session which is set to commence shortly, the ld. CWC is requested to expedite the reassessment so that the same is completed within two weeks, and to send a report thereof. Put up the case record on 8.7.2018, fixed for consideration of the reassessment report. Give copy of this order to all the parties. CWC is requested to expedite the reassessment so that the same is completed within two weeks, and to send a report thereof. Put up the case record on 8.7.2018, fixed for consideration of the reassessment report. Give copy of this order to all the parties. Sd/- JOEL JOSEPH DENGA Sessions Judge Aizawl Judicial District Aizawl : Mizoram" 7. As stated above, after perusal of the above two Orders, one cannot make a mistake in concluding that the learned Sessions Judge had travelled beyond the scope and purpose of the application filed and registered as Criminal Misc. Application No. 137/2018. 8. The provision of Section 2 of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2015, particularly at Clause 20 makes it clear that "Children's Court" means a Court established under the Commissions of Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005 or Special Court under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act), therefore, after the commencement of the act, the Court which has jurisdiction for the subject matter, such as, the present case should be filed before the Children's Court established under either of the two Acts mentioned above or to a Court of Session having jurisdiction to try such offences whenever such Courts are not in existence or no Court has been designated. Since the Government of Mizoram vide Notification dated 27.06.2014 with the recommendation of the Hon'ble Chief Justice of this High Court has designated the District & Sessions Judge, Aizawl as Special Court for the purpose of the Act, the learned Sessions Judge, Aizawl should have taken up the case of the petitioner as a Special Judge and disposed of the same. But, since the learned Sessions Judge has taken up the case as Sessions Judge and passed the impugned order, this Court is of the view that the same is in clear violation of the provisions of law as stated above. 9. But, since the learned Sessions Judge has taken up the case as Sessions Judge and passed the impugned order, this Court is of the view that the same is in clear violation of the provisions of law as stated above. 9. On the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent that the petition is not maintainable as the same has been filed in violation of the provision of Clause 5 of Section 101 of Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2015, read with Section 401, sub-section 4 of CrPC, this Court is of the view that this Court has jurisdiction to entertain the petition under sub- section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2015, wherein it is provided that the High Court may, at any time, either on its own motion or on an application received on this behalf call for the record of any proceeding in which any committee or board or Children's Court or Court has passed an order, for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the legality or propriety of any such order and may pass such order in relation thereto as it deems fit. From the above provision, it is quite clear that the petition is maintainable since the jurisdiction of the Sessions Court, Aizawl has been questioned and propriety of the impugned order has been challenged. 10. In view of what has been stated above, this petition is allowed and the impugned Order dated 22.05.2018 is quashed and set aside. 11. Before I part with this order, I may add here that the learned Sessions Judge shall take up the Criminal Misc. Application No. 137/2018 as Special Judge and consider the application of the petitioner on its own merit. 12. Accordingly, the present Criminal Revision Petition stands disposed of. No cost.