JUDGMENT :

K. N. PHANEENDRA, J.

1. The present appeal is preferred against the order passed by the II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Kolar dated 08.08.2018 under Section 9 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, (hereinafter referred to as 'JJ Act' for short).

2. The petitioner, the sole accused is charge sheeted for the offence punishable under Sections 366A and 376 of IPC and also under Section 6 of the Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act (hereinafter referred to as 'POCSO Act' for short).

3. During pendency of the proceedings, an application was filed stating that the accused was not completed the age of 18 years as on the date of the alleged incident and he was a Juvenile as his date of birth is 28.04.1999 and the incident happened between 21.04.2016 to 30.04.2016, alleging that the accused has kidnapped and abducted the victim girl from Mallasandra village to Bengaluru on his Motorcycle and he had committed sexual intercourse with her during the above said period. The learned Sessions Judge, on 16.01.2018 has passed an order that the accused was below the age of 18 years and above 16 years of age and if he is aware of the consequences of the act and committed the heinous offence, then the Sessions Court can try the appeal. Therefore, the application filed by the accused was rejected.

4. The said order was challenged before this Court in Criminal Appeal No.445/2018 and this Court vide order dated 20.06.2018 has allowed the said appeal and this court has directed that the Sessions Court has to enquire into the claim regarding the age of the accused as to whether the matter is triable by the Juvenile Justice Board or by this Court in view of Section 14, 15 and 18 of the JJ Act. This Court in the said judgment at para 9 has observed that the order of the learned Sessions Judge does not reflect proper analysis of the circumstances and document to come to a conclusion regarding age of the appellant-accused as to whether he was below 18 years or there was any enquiry in this connection. After the remand, the learned Sessions Judge has passed the impugned order dated 08.08.2018. In the said order, the learned Sessions Judge has in fact considered the age of the boy, under the provision of Section 34 of the JJ Act and after perusal of the Aadhaar Card and also the Birth Certificate. Both shows that the date of birth of the accused as 28.04.1999. Therefore, the trial Court has come to the conclusion that, the accused has completed the age of 16 years and he was below the age of 18 years and he was a minor as on the date of the alleged incident.

5. Though the learned Sessions Judge has come to the conclusion that the accused was above the age of 16 years and below the age of 18 years, but without referring to the provisions of Sections 15 and 18 of the JJ Act, he himself has simply stated that the accused has committed the heinous offence and it is purely conferred on the Special Court to decide the age u/s.34 of the JJ Act, and therefore, the Sessions Court has got jurisdiction to proceed with the trial of the case. Accordingly, again the said application was dismissed. Against which order, the present appeal is preferred.

6. Of course, the learned Sessions Judge has got ample power u/s.34 of the JJ Act to determine the age of the Juvenile as on the date of the incident. There is no dispute that the Sessions Judge has enquired into the matter considering the Birth Certificate and the Aadhaar Card, and came to a definite conclusion that the accused was above the age of 16 years and below the age of 18 years. But without referring to Sections 15 & 18 of the Act, the provisions are mechanically mentioned in the order. Further, the learned Sessions Judge has not even cared to look into meticulously the contents of the said provisions. Only on the ground that, the offence is heinous in nature, the Sessions Judge has got power to proceed with the Trial.

7. In this background, it is just and necessary