Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.

1. The State of Chhattisgarh through the Station House Officer, Kota filed charge-sheet against the respondent No. 3 for the commission of offence under Section 376, I.P.C. read with Sections 3 & 6 of the Protection of Children from sexual Offences Act, 2012 before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Bilaspur. In the said Court, the respondent No. 3/accused filed an application to this effect that on the date of alleged offences i.e. 26-7-2003, respondent No. 3/accused was juvenile as his actual date of birth is 30-12-1995, which is less than 18 years of age and, therefore, he be sent to the observation home whereas case of the prosecution is that on the basis of High School Certificate Examination, 2011, date of birth of respondent No. 3/accused is 25.5.1995, as such, he was major on the date of occurrence of crime i.e. aged about 18 years and 2 months and was not a juvenile.

2. Learned Sessions Judge made an enquiry in order to determine the juvenility of the respondent No. 3/accused.

3. In the course of enquiry, respondent No. 3/accused examined witness No. 1 - Manirani Sahu (father) & witness No. 2 - Duwasini Bai (mother); and also examined Kotwar witness No. 3 - Umashanakar and he filed Kotwar Panji 1995 [Ex. 3(C)] and stated the date of birth of respondent No. 3 as 30.12.1995.

4. Learned Sessions Judge, after conclusion of enquiry, found that as per Ex. A-3C-Kotwari Punji and birth certificate (Ex. A-2), the date of birth of the respondent No. 3 is 30.12.1995 and as per that certificate, age of respondent No. 3 is 17 years, 7 months and 26 days on the date of incident i.e. on 26.07.2013 and, therefore, the respondent No. 3 being juvenile on the date of commission of alleged offences, remanded the matter to the Juvenile Justice Board constituted under Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection) of Children Act, 2003 ('hencefore J.J. Act, 2003') for hearing and disposal of the criminal case in accordance with law.

5. Questioning the said order of Additional Sessions Judge, (FTC), Bilaspur, present revision has been filed by the complainant under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

6. Shri Ravi Maheshwari, learned counsel for the applicant would submit that learned Sessions Judge has failed to notice Section 7A of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (henceforth 'the J.J. Act, 2000') and Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 (henceforth 'the Rules, 2007') made thereunder, wherein the procedure to be followed has been thoroughly prescribed, when claim of juvenility is raised before the court. Elaborating his submission, Shri Maheshwari would submit that Rule 12 specially provides procedure to be followed in determination of the age and sub-rule (3) of Rule 12 is mandatory in nature and once the date of birth from the school as provided under said sub-rule is available on record, learned Additional Sessions Judge has committed grave legal error in relying upon the extract of kotwari punji register Ex. A-3(c) and Ex. A-2 by making roving enquiry and as such, order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge deserves to be set aside.

7. Shri P.K. Verma, learned Senior counsel appearing for respondent No. 3, while supporting the order impugned, would submit that sub-rule 3 of Rule 12 is ultra vires to the provisions of Constitution of India and as such, the learned Additional Sessions Judge is justified in holding that respondent No. 3 to be the juvenile relying upon Ex. A-3, the extract of Kotwari register.

8. Mr. Neeraj Mehta, learned State counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1 & 2 would submit that the procedure followed by learned Additional Sessions Judge in determining the juvenility of respondent No. 3 is contrary to the J.J. Act, 2000 and rules of 2007 made thereunder, therefore, impugned order deserves to be set aside.

9. I have heard learned counsel appearing for parties and considered their rival submissions made