JUDGMENT :

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner; learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2.

2. The present application has been filed under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 for setting aside the order and judgment dated 22.12.2015 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Samastipur in Juvenile Enquiry No. 679 of 2015 under Sections 302 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code relating to Bibhutipur P.S. Case No. 60 of 1996 dated 24.05.1996 under Sections 304A and 279 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The petitioner is the informant of Bibhutipur P.S. Case No. 60 of 1996 in which it has been alleged that the opposite party no. 2 while driving Tractor dashed against the son of the petitioner, who died on the spot. During trial, the opposite party no. 2 filed a petition claiming to be juvenile on the date of occurrence. The same was sent to the Juvenile Justice Board, Samastipur for holding enquiry which has resulted in passing of the impugned order by which he has been held to be a juvenile and further he has been acquitted.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the plea of juvenility was taken with mala fide intention as it is totally false. Learned counsel drew the attention of the Court to the school certificate of the opposite party no. 2 which reveal that his date of birth is 05.06.1977. He also drew the attention of the Court to the certificate of the Headmaster of the school dated 01.06.2017 in which also he has certified that as per the records of the school, the date of birth of the opposite party no. 2 is 05.06.1977. Learned counsel submitted that the said document, at the earliest point of time, had to be considered but the same has not been done. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner being the informant, who has lost his son, is entitled to participate in the enquiry before the Juvenile Justice Board for deciding juvenility, which in the present case has been denied to him as notice has neither been sent to him nor received by him. It was further submitted that the Juvenile Justice Board has erroneously acquitted the opposite party no. 2 on the ground that there was no evidence. It was submitted that the evidence was being recorded in the criminal case and in the case before the Juvenile Justice Board, it was the duty of the prosecuting agency, i.e., the State authorities, who had to produce the witnesses and if there has been any lapse on their part the petitioner’s cause cannot be allowed to suffer as it would lead to miscarriage of justice.

5. Learned APP fairly submitted that the petitioner was required to be given opportunity and the materials brought on record by him was required to be considered by the Juvenile Justice Board before passing any final order which has not been done.

6. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 submitted that before the Juvenile Justice Board, witnesses were called and rightly time was given but when they did not appear, the Juvenile Justice Board has gone ahead and passed the order.

However, on a direct query of the Court, as to how the issue of juvenility was decided without taking note of the school certificate and the certificate of the Headmaster which show that the petitioner was not juvenile on the date of occurrence, learned counsel could not meet the query of the Court and only submitted that in the certificate issued by the Bihar School Examination Board, his date of birth has been shown as 22.01.1980.

7. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the Court finds that a case for interference has been made out.

8. The petitioner being the father of the victim has locus standi even in the enquiry which is conducted as to whether the accused was juvenile on the date of occurrence or not. This clearly has not been done. Further, before the Court, the petitioner has been able to bring cogent materials which indicate that in th