The central legal point established in the judgment is the determination of the accused's juvenile status at the time of the alleged offence and the subsequent transfer of the case to the Juvenile Justice Board for adjudication.

JUDGMENT

Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J. - Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 24th September, 2018 passed by the learned Judge, CBI Court no. 4, Bichar Bhawan Calcutta, in connection with Special Case no. 05 of 2011 arising out of RC 42(A)/98 dated 27.10.1998 under Section 120B read with Sections 420/419/467/468/471/109 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 13 (2) and Section 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the present application has been filed under Section 401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

2. The petitioners contended that the instant case was registered on 27.10.1998 pursuant to a source information wherein it was alleged that during the period 1988-89, one Naba Kumar Roy (since deceased) the then Branch Manager, Allahabad Bank, Chinsurah Branch, Hooghly entered into a criminal conspiracy with one Radheshyam Agarwal, Director of M/s. Chiranjee Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. and unknown others and in furtherance of the said criminal conspiracy, cheated Allahabad Bank at Chinsurah Branch to the tune of Rs. 64,97,603.19/- by committing forgery in the process of disbursing loan sanctioned by the bank, in favour of farmers/potato growers, violating the procedures laid down by the bank.

3. It is further submitted that the investigating agency after completion of perfunctory investigation of the instant case submitted charge sheet vide charge sheet no. 48 of 2002 dated 30.9.2002 for alleged commission of offences punishable under Section 120B read with Sections 420/419/467/468/471/109 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 13 (2) and Section 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against eight accused persons including the petitioners herein.

4. On 23.6.2017, the accused/petitioners preferred an application under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 praying for their discharge from the instant case on the ground that there is nothing on record to establish their involvement in the alleged offence and also on the ground that at the time of alleged commission of such offence they were juvenile as per the Juvenile Justice (Care and protection) act, 2015(hereinafter called as Juvenile Justice Act, 2015). The accused/ petitioners also produced relevant documents of unimpeachable character as well as of sterling equality in support of their contention before the learned Judge. Learned Judge was pleased to pass the order for conducting enquiry as to the viability of the contention raised by the accused petitioners as well as regarding the veracity of the documents annexed to the application dated 23.6.2017 in support of their contention that they were juvenile at the time of alleged commission of offence. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) after causing necessary enquiry also submitted a report thereby upholding the contention of the accused petitioners that they were juvenile on the alleged date of commission of offence.

5. It is further submitted that the learned Judge, after hearing the learned advocates appearing for all the parties vide impugned order dated 24th September, 2018, was pleased to reject the prayer of the accused petitioners on the ground that the prayer made in the petition does not appear to be very cogent and significant. Learned court further held that accused petitioners were juvenile at the time of alleged commission of offence. However, learned Judge refused to forward them before the concerned juvenile Justice board having necessary jurisdiction for further proceeding and learned trial court pleased to hold that the present proceeding of such juvenile would continue before the regular court as earlier, along with other accused persons of the case who were not juvenile on the alleged date of commission of offence.

6. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that learned trial court while passing the impugned order thereby rejecting the accused petitioner's prayer for discharge, failed to consider and appreciat