Chandra Shekhar Jha, J. – Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.

2. This criminal Revision is preferred, challenging the Judgment dated 23.03.2022, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Patna, in connection with Criminal Appeal No. 138 of 2019, arising out of J.J.B. Case No. 755 of 2018, through which the learned Sessions Judge, Patna, while allowing the prayer of Criminal Appeal No. 138 of 2019, filed by the opposite party no. 2 set aside the order dated 30.04.2019, passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Patna in J.J.B. Case No. 755 of 2018 and directed the J.J.B. Patna to transfer the J.J.B. Case No. 755 of 2018 to the Children’s Court, Patna u/s 18(3) of Juvenile Justice Act for its trial.

3. As per case of prosecution, on 20.10.2018, the informant XYZ (name withheld), aged about 17 years lodged a written complaint before the officer-in charge of Kadirganj Police station, Patna, alleging thereof that while she was cutting grass in the field, suddenly the accused/petitioner came there and after snatching Hasua from her hand, committed rape upon her. The informant further alleged that after occurrence, she came to her house and narrated occurrence to her mother, whereafter her mother went to the house of the accused Sanjay Prasad (father of the petitioner) and told him about the occurrence/offence committed by his son, on which Sanjay Prasad and his elder son Amarjeet Kumar threatened her by showing rod and pistol and asked her to leave their house, consequent upon having no option left, informant on 19.10.2018, went to police station, where written complaint was given to officer-in-charge of Kadirganj Police Station, resulting thereof, the present F.I.R. was lodged on 20.10.2018.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the judgment dated 23.03.2022, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Patna in Cr. App No. 138 of 2019 is not maintainable and appears bad on the point of law as well as on the point of fact. It is submitted that the learned Appellate Court could not directly send the matter to Children Court u/s 18(3) of JJ Act, as it is the discretionary power available only with Juvenile Justice Board to transfer the case of a child to the children’s court for the trial as an adult and this power cannot be taken away by the learned Sessions Judge, while exercising its Appellate Jurisdiction. It is also submitted that the learned Appellate Court has failed to consider this fact that according to Section 15 of the J.J.B. Act, the Juvenile Justice Board has passed the order in favour of the petitioner after following the all procedure as mentioned in Section 15 of the J.J.B. Act, i.e., after taking the assistance of experienced psychologist and medical expert, which is clear from the order dated 30.04.2019, passed by Juvenile Justice Board.

5. It is further submitted that learned Appellate Court has wrongly relied on the social investigation report available on record contrary to law, where no fresh psychological and medical report of child in issue was obtained. It is also submitted that the learned Appellate Court has passed its judgment against the mandatory provision of law because section 101 of Juvenile Justice Act, provide an operational restriction, where the learned Sessions Judge must decide the appeal within a period of 30 days, but in this case, where appeal was filed on 02.07.2019, was decided on 23.03.2022 (after about 2 years and 8 months), which is against the mandatory provision of law, and on this ground alone impugned judgment is liable to be set aside.

6. It is also submitted by learned counsel that Section 101(2) of Juvenile Justice Act says that while deciding the appeal the Appellate Court may take the assistance of experienced psychologist and medical specialist other than those whose assistance has been obtained by the board in passing the order, but the learned Appellate Court without taking the assistance of any psychologist and medical experts, passed impugned ord