ORDER : Ashok Kumar Jain, J. 1. Instant S.B. Criminal Revision Petition is preferred by petitioner-complainant (father of deceased) aggrieved from order dated 06.03.2018 in sessions Case No. 15/2018 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, No.2, Alwar whereby learned Additional Sessions Judge while considering application under Section 7-A of Juvenile Justice Act has allowed the application and declared respondent Nos. 2 and 3 as juvenile and directed SHO P.S. Shivaji Park, District Alwar to file a separate charge-sheet against them before the Juvenile Justice Board, Alwar. 2. Learned council for complainant while placing reliance upon Kanaram Saini Vs. State of Rajasthan 2018 (3) CJ (Cri.) (Raj.) 1326 submits that after coming into force of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2015, the age of any person can be determined only in accordance with Section 94 of the Act, but herein this case, the learned Additional Session Court without going through the legal position has used the provision of Juvenile Justice Act 2000, which was already repealed on date of consideration of matter. He submits that the Trial Court has not only committed serious error, but acted contrary to the provision of applicable law. 3. Aforesaid contentions were supported by learned Public Prosecutor but learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 submitted that after the direction dated 06.03.2018, a charge- sheet has already been filed before the Juvenile Justice Board, Alwar and after the charge-sheet, the entire trial has been completed. He further submits that the matter is at final stage, therefore, it is not appropriate to set aside the impugned order. 4. Heard learned counsels for the parties and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record. Also considered the judgments as referred by learned counsel for petitioner. 5. In a matter arising out of FIR No. 244/2017 Police Station Shivaji Park, Alwar, police has filed a charge-sheet against Hanuman Prasad @ Jack under Sections 302, 201, 406, 120-B IPC and 4/25 Arms Act, Deepak @ Bugla aged 19 years under Sections 302, 460, 120-B IPC and 4/25 Arms Act, Kapil aged 20 years under Section 302, 460, 120-B IPC and Santosh @ Sandhya under Sections 302, 460, 120-B IPC. Later, case was transferred to learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Alwar after assignment by learned District Judge, Alwar. 6. Later, case was transferred to learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Alwar after assignment by learned District Judge, Alwar. 6. On 06.03.2018, an application under section 7-A of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act was filed by Deepak and Kapil, claiming that date of birth of Deepak is 15.07.2005 and Kapil is 15.05.2001 and on date of incident on 2nd/3rd, October, 2017 both were below the age of 18 years, so their matter required to be be tried by the JJB hence, be transferred to Juvenile Justice Board. 7. Learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2 after recording the evidence of three witnesses has opined that both the accused Deepak and Kapil were juvenile (CCL) on date of incident and their matter is referred to Juvenile Justice Board, Alwar and both of them be transferred to Observation Home from District Jail, Alwar. On very same day, the trial court has passed an order to frame charge against Hanuman and Santosh @ Sandhya. Accused Santosh @ sandhya has filed a criminal revision petition number 798/2018 before this court and same was dismissed by a co-ordinate Bench on 29.11.2022. Admittedly, the incident is of night of 2nd/3rd, October, 2017 and on that day, the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (herein referred as Act of 2015) has already came into force and was applicable for all purposes. The scheme of Act of 2015 suggests that there is no provision as “Section 7-A”. Section 7 speaks of procedure in relation to Board and Section 8 speaks of powers, functions and responsibility of the Board, thus, the provision of Section 7-A is not available under the Act of 2015. 8. When we perused the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2000, then Section 7-A, outlines the procedure for determination of juvenility when a claim is raised before a Court. This section 7-A is part of the repealed Act of 2000, which mandates the court before when a claim of juvenility is raised to enquire and determine about such claim. If the court was of the opinion that the concerned person was a juvenile on date of incident, then it can forward the matter to Juvenile Justice Board. This section 7-A is part of the repealed Act of 2000, which mandates the court before when a claim of juvenility is raised to enquire and determine about such claim. If the court was of the opinion that the concerned person was a juvenile on date of incident, then it can forward the matter to Juvenile Justice Board. For ready reference provision of section 7-A of Act of 2000 (Repealed Act) is reproduced as under:- (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 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. 9. The trial court has determined the age of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 Deepak and Kapil on basis of a provision which was already repealed after coming into force of Act of 2015. It is also evident that the counsel who represented respondent Nos. 2 and 3 has also mislead the court and a proper action is required to be initiated against him to mislead the court. It is expected of the trial court to initiate action against a counsel who has not only referred the repealed provision of law but also relied upon repealed provision to secure a favorable order for respondent Nos. 2 and 3. 10. It is expected of the trial court to initiate action against a counsel who has not only referred the repealed provision of law but also relied upon repealed provision to secure a favorable order for respondent Nos. 2 and 3. 10. It is also evident from the order itself that the trial court (learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2) without going through the applicable law has not only determined the age of respondent Nos. 2 and 3, but declared them as juvenile . Moreover, the case is under section 302-IPC, wherein the allegations clearly indicate that Santosh @ Sandhya in conspiracy with Hanuman Prasad @ Jack, Deepak @ Bagla and Kapil have committed murder of Banwari Lal @ Bablu, Aman @ Mohit, Happy @ Hemesh, Ajju @ Lekesh and Nikki @ Akhlesh (total five persons). It is a very very serious and gruesome act, wherein a casual approach of learned Additional Session Judge has agitated the complainant to approach this court and only on agitation of complainant the action of learned trial court came to notice by this court. 11. After coming into force of Act of 2015, the provisions and section 9 is applicable and same is reproduced as under:- (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 persons claim of being a child is being inquired into, such person may be placed, in the intervening period in a place of safety. 12. Aforesaid indicate that as and when a person alleged to have been committed of an offence and brought before a Magistrate, he shall without a delay, record the opinion and forward the child along with record under section 9 (1) of the Act of 2015 to the Board having jurisdiction, but when a person is already facing a charge before a Court, other than Board then the procedure as prescribed under section 9(2) of the Act of 2015 is applicable. The determination of age should be in accordance with provision under Section 94 of the Act of 2015. The determination of age should be in accordance with provision under Section 94 of the Act of 2015. The provision of section 94 is reproduced as under: (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. 13. In case of P. Yuvaprakash vs State Rep. By Inspector of Police (2025) INSC 626 , Hon’ble Supreme Court after considering the provision of section 94 of the Act of 2015, and also considered the judgment in case of Abuzar Hossain @ Gulam Hussain Vs. 13. In case of P. Yuvaprakash vs State Rep. By Inspector of Police (2025) INSC 626 , Hon’ble Supreme Court after considering the provision of section 94 of the Act of 2015, and also considered the judgment in case of Abuzar Hossain @ Gulam Hussain Vs. State of West Bengal (2012) 9 SCR 224 , Sanjeev Kumar Gupta Vs The State of Uttar Pradesh 9 SCR 224 and Rishipal Singh Solanki vs. The State Of Uttar Pradesh (2021) 12 SCR 502 has observed that whenever there is a dispute with regard to age of a person then the Courts have to take recourse to the steps indicated under Section 94 of the JJ Act. 14. In case of Sanjeev Kumar Gupta vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh (supra) a matriculation certificate was discarded as a prior document which was given precedent under Section 94 of the Act was available on record, therefore any Court which has to determine the age of any person including accused, CCL or victim then it has to take recourse to Section 94 of the Act of 2015. Any methodology adopted other than Section 94 is void and contrary to provision of law. The order of precedents of documents as mentioned in Section 94 is very specific and every Court dealing with such a subject is required to follow the same in letter and spirit. 15. Herein, this case learned trial court has not only relied upon judgment of a Coordinate Bench of this court passed in relation to a provision of law, already repealed but it also invoked a wrong provision while allowing the application of Deepak and Kapil. It indicate that the concerned judicial officer has either acted carelessly and negligently or with some ulterior motive. Whatever be the action of the judicial officer but it has damaged the case of the prosecution wherein a charge-sheet has been filed on the basis of age claim of Deepak and Kapil. 16. The counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 has submitted that the Juvenile Justice board has completed its process of inquiry. Herein, this case when the provision of Act of 2015 are applicable and as per claim of respondent Nos. 2 and 3, they were above 16 years of age and offence charged is 302- IPC, then it fall under which is in the category of heinous offence. Herein, this case when the provision of Act of 2015 are applicable and as per claim of respondent Nos. 2 and 3, they were above 16 years of age and offence charged is 302- IPC, then it fall under which is in the category of heinous offence. In such circumstances an inquiry as mandated under Section 15 read with Section 18 of Act of 2015 was required and only after preliminary assessment, Juvenile Justice Board can determine whether the matter be forwarded to the children Court for trial of respondent Nos.2 and 3 as an adult or it has to be kept by Juvenile Justice Board. 17. Aforesaid clearly indicate that the entire process adopted by the Court below was illegal and perverse, and I am of the opinion that any act committed in by passing the law cannot be perpetuated and if any illegal act is committed by a judicial officer, then no benefits can be claimed by any person, whether he is an accused or a complainant. 18. Thus, the order passed by learned Additional Sessions, Judge cannot be sustained on any ground and same is liable to be set aside and matter is required to be remitted back for afresh decision on application under the provision of Act of 2015. 19. In view of discussions made hereinabove, this instant revision petition is hereby allowed and order dated 06.03.2018 in sessions case No. 15/2018 passed by learned Additional Sessions Court No. 2, Alwar is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the trial court for decision afresh on claim of juvenility by Deepak and Kapil in accordance with provision of the Act of 2015. 20. The Juvenile Justice Board, Alwar is directed to remit back the record to learned Additional Session Judge, No.2, Alwar with immediate effect. 21. The prosecution and Superintendent of Police is required to respond immediately and ensure positive assistance in quest of justice. 22. A copy of this order be sent to Registrar (Vigilance) for initiating an enquiry against learned Presiding Officer who passed the order dated 06.03.2018. 23. A copy of this order be also sent to the Hon’ble the Judge (In-charge of Rajasthan Judicial Academy) for considering training to concerned Judicial Officer. 24. A copy of this order be also sent to Principal Secretary, (Law and legal affairs), Rajasthan to take note of failure to challenge illegal order dated 06.03.2018. 23. A copy of this order be also sent to the Hon’ble the Judge (In-charge of Rajasthan Judicial Academy) for considering training to concerned Judicial Officer. 24. A copy of this order be also sent to Principal Secretary, (Law and legal affairs), Rajasthan to take note of failure to challenge illegal order dated 06.03.2018. 25. The parties are directed to appear before learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Alwar on 02.06.2025.