JUDGMENT : SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND, J. Heard learned counsel Mr. S. Dey for the appellant X, Ms. N. Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent State and learned counsel Mr. D. Gogoi for the respondent No. 2. 2. Vide order dated 05.09.2025, the Special Judge (POCSO), Tinsukia, was directed to conduct an enquiry to the aspect of juvenility of the appellant by taking recourse to the requirements under Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (Act of 2015 for short). 3. A report has been received along with the proceeding of the enquiry. The proceedings were conducted to the satisfaction of this Court. The entire proceeding is marked as ‘P’ and will form a part of this record. 4. After scrutinizing the original admission register for the year 2011, along with the other documents and after examining the Head Teacher of No. 1 Selenguri L.P. School, Kakopathar, it was observed by the learned Special Judge, POCSO, Tinsukia that on the precise calculation the age of the juvenile X was found to be 14 years 2 months and 21 days at the time of the incident on 27.08.2020 as the date of birth of the juvenile X is 06.06.2006. 5. This juvenile X was tried as an adult and he was convicted vide the judgment and order dated 17.03.2025 in connection with POCSO Case No. 38/2020 arising out of Kakopathar Police Station Case No. 35/2020, under Section 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act for short) and, sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and also to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) in default of R.I. for 4 months. Now, this judgment and order is not sustainable as a juvenile in conflict with law was tried as an adult. He is entitled to a fresh trial as a juvenile or a child in conflict with law. Thus, this Court will not deal with the merits of this case. 6. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor that the plea of juvenility can be raised at any stage. 7. He is entitled to a fresh trial as a juvenile or a child in conflict with law. Thus, this Court will not deal with the merits of this case. 6. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor that the plea of juvenility can be raised at any stage. 7. Section 9(3) of the Act of 2015 says :- “(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.” Proviso to Section 9(2) of the Act of 2015 also provides that :- “(2) In case a person alleged to have committed an offence claims before 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.” 8. It has been held by the Division Bench of this Court in Jamal Uddin-Vs. State of Assam & Anr. reported in 2019 (2) GLT 1016 that :- “14. Section 1(4) of the JJ Act of 2000, inter alia provides as follows: “Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the provisions of this Act shall apply to all cases involving detention, prosecution, penalty or sentence of imprisonment of juveniles in conflict with law under any such law.” 15. Section 1(4) of the JJ Act of 2000, inter alia provides as follows: “Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the provisions of this Act shall apply to all cases involving detention, prosecution, penalty or sentence of imprisonment of juveniles in conflict with law under any such law.” 15. The provisions of Section 1(4) begins with a non-obstante clause that notwithstanding anything contained in any other law which also includes the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the provisions of the JJ Act of 2000 shall apply to all cases involving detention, prosecution, penalty or sentence of imprisonment of juveniles in conflict with law under any such law. The expression “conflict with law under any such law” would have to be understood to be a conflict with law under any other law other than the JJ Act of 2000, and, therefore, notwithstanding the provisions of any other law, the provisions of only the JJ Act of 2000 shall thereafter apply to all such cases of a juvenile being in conflict with law. In other words, after a person has been determined to be a juvenile, the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 shall no longer be applicable for determination of any of the aspect as regards the detention, prosecution, penalty or sentence of imprisonment of juveniles in conflict with law. If the Code of Criminal Procedure is not longer applicable, an appeal under Section 374 would also not be maintainable and, therefore, the correctness of the conviction that may have been made under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 cannot further be determined. In the aforesaid situation, we are left only with the provision of Section 7A(2) of the JJ Act of 2000 which clearly provides that if a Court finds a person to be juvenile on the date of commission of offence, it shall forward the juvenile to the Board for passing an appropriate order. Accordingly, upon the applicant/appellant No.3 having been found to be a juvenile the only option available before this Court is to forward the juvenile to the Board for passing appropriate orders, under the provisions of Section 7A(2) of the JJ Act of 2000.” 9. Accordingly, upon the applicant/appellant No.3 having been found to be a juvenile the only option available before this Court is to forward the juvenile to the Board for passing appropriate orders, under the provisions of Section 7A(2) of the JJ Act of 2000.” 9. Reverting back to this case, it is held that the juvenile X was below 16 years at the time of the incident and he could not have been tried as an adult. Accordingly, it is provided that the sentence imposed against the appellant X in the judgment and order dated 17.03.2025 in POCSO Case No.38/2020 shall have no effect any further. This Court further provides to forward the appellant X to the Juvenile Board forthwith for passing appropriate orders. 10. As the appellant is in jail, the Superintendent of Jail, Tinsukia, where he is presently serving out his sentence shall do the needful to produce the appellant ‘X’ before the appropriate Juvenile Justice, Board and upon his production, the Board shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. The judgment and order dated 17.03.2025 in connection with POCSO Case No. 38/2020 is hereby declared to have no effect of law. 11. In terms of the above observation, this appeal stands disposed of. 12. Send back the Trial Court Records for onward transmission of the same to the appropriate forum.