JUDGMENT

S.G. Mehare, J. - Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties, the petition is finally heard.

2. The applicant who had attained the majority at the time of filing of this petition has impugned the order of the Adhoc District Judge-2 and Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad, passed below Exhibit-22 in S.C. (POCSO) No.305/2014 dated 30.11.2018.

3. The brief facts relevant to the facts in issue have been summarized as follows.

4. The applicant was arraigned as an accused of the offences under Section 376(2)(f)(i) and 342 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 3, 6 and 5(i)(m) of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 ('POCSO Act' for short). The charges were framed. The witnesses were also examined. The accused did not cross-examine the witnesses, as the counsel representing the accused did not attend the case. Subsequently, the lawyer changed. He sought permission to cross-examine the witnesses. The leave was granted; however, instead of cross-examining the witnesses, the applicant/accused raised a plea of juvenility. He claimed that on the date of the alleged incident, he was below 18 years. Therefore, the inquiry may be conduc