1. The age-old pristine maxim “Fraus et jus naunquam cohabitant” has never lost its sheen and temper over all these centuries, which means “fraud and justice can never dwell together.”

2. Applying the said maxim, the Supreme Court, in the case of District Collector & Chairman, Vizianagaram Social Welfare Residential School Society, Vizianagaram and Another vs. M. Tripura Sundari Devi, reported in (1990) 3 SCC 655, observed that dishonesty should not be permitted to bear the fruit and benefit to such persons who played fraud or made misrepresentation. In such situation, the Court should not perpetuate the fraud, the Supreme Court has held.

3. These opening observations are being made in the present judgment and order since upon considering the materials on record and submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, I have formed an opinion that the petitioner had, by playing fraud, got himself declared a juvenile, which has been, subsequently, undone by the orders, which are impugned in the present criminal revision application, filed under Section 102 Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as “J.J. Act, 2015”). Since the date of occurrence of the case is 01.06.2006, the petitioner’s case cannot be said to be governed by J.J. Act, 2015. The provision of law (Section 102 of the J.J. Act, 2015) under which the present criminal revision application has been filed is apparently incorrect. Mentioning of incorrect provision of law, however, makes no difference. This application has, accordingly, been treated to have been filed under Section 52 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (in short, J.J. Act, 2000). In view of the clear provision under Section 25 of the J.J. Act, 2015, the provisions of J.J. Act, 2000 shall apply in the present case and not the provisions of J.J. Act, 2015.

4. The petitioner is aggrieved by an order, dated 01.10.202016, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Darbhanga, in Criminal Appeal No. 36 of 2010, whereby he has dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner against an order, dated 14.07.2016, passed by learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Darbhanga, in Enquiry Case No. 70 of 2016, arising out of Bahadurpur Police Station Case No. 106 of 2006. By the said order of the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Darbhanga, the petitioner has been declared to be a major, as on the date of the occurrence.

5. Before I deal with the challenge to the impugned order, I must, briefly, take note of the developments from the date of institution of the First Information Report till passing of the order impugned, which are relevant for appreciation of the issues involved.

6. On the basis of fardbayan of Opposite Party No. 2, Bahadurpur Police Station Case No. 106 of 2006 came to be registered for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, in which 06 (six) persons, including this petitioner, were named as accused. It is alleged that on the date of occurrence, i.e. on 01.06.2006, when the brother (deceased) of the Opposite Party No. 2 was resting after taking his meal at about 12:30 PM during the day time, the accused persons and one unknown arrived at the door of the brother of the informant. The co-accused, Chhote and Istehaque, are said to have caught hold of both the legs and Tamanne and Kaptan, arms of the deceased, on instigation of co-accused Mustaque. The petitioner thereafter took out a pistol from his waist and shot at the brother of the informant from close range, who sustained fire arm injuries and was immediately taken to Darbhanga Medical College and Hospital with bullet injuries, where he was declared dead. The First Information Report was immediately lodged thereafter.

7. Four years after lodging of the First Information Report, the petitioner filed a petition under Section 7-A of the J.J. Act, 2000, before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Da