ORDER : 1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, Shri Vijay Prakash Dwivedi, learned AGA for the State and perused the material available on record. 2. The instant Criminal Revision under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2015 has been filed against the judgment and order dated 28.2.2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Sultanpur in Special Sessions Trial No. 537 of 2018 arising out of case crime No. 423 of 2017, U/s 354(B) IPC and Section 17/18 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012, Police Station-Lambhua, District-Sultanpur, whereby the application for declaring the revisionist as juvenile in conflict with law has been rejected. 3. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the revisionist preferred an application for declaring his juvenility before the trial court U/s 9 of Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (in short "the Act, 2015"). The trial court recorded the findings that the family register issued by the Panchayat is not admitted as a proof of age under the provision of section 94 of the Act, 2015, which is contrary to the view held by the Apex Court. But the said application of the revisionist was rejected by the learned trial court without appreciating the evidence available on record and without observing the procedure as prescribed U/s 9 and 94 of the Act, 2015 on 28.2.2023. The said sections 9 and 94 of the Act, 2015 read as under: "9. Procedure to be followed by a Magistrate who has not been empowered under this Act.-(1) When a Magistrate, not empowered to exercise the powers of the Board under this Act is of the opinion that the person alleged to have committed the offence and brought before him is a child, he shall, without any delay, record such opinion and forward the child immediately along with the record of such proceedings to the Board having jurisdiction. (2) In case a person alleged to have committed an offence claims before a court other than a Board, that the person is a child or was a child on the date of commission of the offence, or if the court itself is of the opinion that the person was a child on the date of commission of the offence, the said court shall make an inquiry, take such evidence as may be necessary (but not an affidavit) to determine the age of such person, and shall record a finding on the matter, stating the age of the person as nearly as may be: Provided that such a claim may be raised before any court and it shall be recognised at any stage, even after final disposal of the case, and such a claim shall be determined in accordance with the provisions contained in this Act and the rules made thereunder even if the person has ceased to be a child on or before the date of commencement of this Act. (3) If the court finds that a person has committed an offence and was a child on the date of commission of such offence, it shall forward the child to the Board for passing appropriate orders and the sentence, if any, passed by the court shall be deemed to have no effect. (4) In case a person under this section is required to be kept in protective custody, while the person's claim of being a child is being inquired into, such person may be placed, in the intervening period in a place of safety. 94. Presumption and determination of age.-(1) Where, it is obvious to the Committee or the Board, based on the appearance of the person brought before it under any of the provisions of this Act (other than for the purpose of giving evidence) that the said person is a child, the Committee or the Board shall record such observation stating the age of the child as nearly as may be and proceed with the inquiry under section 14 or section 36, as the case may be, without waiting for further confirmation of the age. (2) In case, the Committee or the Board has reasonable grounds for doubt regarding whether the person brought before it is a child or not, the Committee or the Board, as the case may be, shall undertake the process of age determination, by seeking evidence by obtaining -- (i) the date of birth certificate from the school, or the matriculation or equivalent certificate from the concerned examination Board, if available; and in the absence thereof; (ii) the birth certificate given by a corporation or a municipal authority or a panchayat; (iii) and only in the absence of (i) and (ii) above, age shall be determined by an ossification test or any other latest medical age determination test conducted on the orders of the Committee or the Board: Provided such age determination test conducted on the order of the Committee or the Board shall be completed within fifteen days from the date of such order. (3) The age recorded by the Committee or the Board to be the age of person so brought before it shall, for the purpose of this Act, be deemed to be the true age of that person." 4. The further submission the counsel for the revisionist is that without proper inquiry and without application of judicial mind, the trial court rejected the aforesaid application of the revisionist in a cursory manner on the same day i.e. on 28.2.2023 without conducting any inquiry under the Act, 2015. 5. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that in section 94 of the Act, 2015, it is clearly provided that first preference should be given to the date of birth certificate issued from the school or the matriculation or equivalent certificate issued from the concerned board. But the counsel submitted that the revisionist is illiterate and he never got admitted in any school and thus, his birth certificate issued from the board is not available. It is further submitted that as per section 94(ii) of the Act, 2015, birth certificate issued by the Panchayat shall be considered. But the learned trial court rejected the birth certificate of the revisionist issued by the Panchayat in a cursory manner without passing any appropriate order. It is also submitted that learned trial court in the judgement mentioned that in 313 CrPC statement, the revisionist himself stated that he was about 20-21 years. But the learned trial court rejected the birth certificate of the revisionist issued by the Panchayat in a cursory manner without passing any appropriate order. It is also submitted that learned trial court in the judgement mentioned that in 313 CrPC statement, the revisionist himself stated that he was about 20-21 years. The matter pertains to year 2017, which itself shows that six years ago, the age of the revisionist was less than 18 years. Moreover, in pariwar register issued by the Gram Panchayat, the date of birth of the revisionist is 2001. The counsel further submitted that juvenility can be claimed at any stage even pendency of the appeal. 6. Learned AGA vehemently opposed and submitted that the trial court rejected the application of the revisionist after applying judicial mind. Thus, the impugned order passed by the trial court is not liable to be quashed. 7. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, learned trial court is directed to decide the application to claim the juvenility of the revisionist within one month as per sections 9 and 94 of the Act, 2015. Till determination of claim of the juvenility, no final order shall be passed. The impugned order dated 28.2.2023 passed by the trial court is hereby quashed. 8. Accordingly, the instant revision is hereby allowed. 9. Let this order be communicated to the court concerned for necessary compliance.