ORDER :

(Ashutosh Kumar, J.)

Both these criminal revision petitions have been filed against the order dated 19.01.202021 passed by the learned Special Court POCSO Act, District Dholpur (hereinafter referred to as the 'trial Court'). Therefore, both these criminal revision petitions are being disposed of by this common order.

2. Both these criminal revision petitions have been filed by the petitioners against order dated 19.01.2021 passed by the learned Special Court POCSO Act, District Dholpur in Sessions Case No.5/2020 titled as State of Rajasthan v. Krishna and Anr. by which learned trial Court has rejected the applications of petitioners: Krishna and Abhishek, by which they had pleaded to be treated as juveniles.

3. The relevant facts, in brief are that an FIR No.250/2019 under Sections 363 and 366A IPC was lodged by the complainant Chanchal S/o Suresh Chand alleging that one Abhishek had kidnapped his minor daughter. Thereafter, investigation was conducted and charge-sheet for the offences punishable under Sections 363 , 366A, 376DA read with Section 109 IPC and sections 5, 6 and 17 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 was submitted in the learned trial Court. The petitioners had also been made accused therein.

4. Both the petitioners submitted applications before the learned trial Court and claimed that they be declared and treated as juvenile and that their matter be sent to Juvenile Justice Board for trial.

5. Learned trial Court vide its impugned order rejected their applications, hence these petitions.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners have contended that the learned trial Court has overlooked the mandatory requirement of law, for determination of age of the juvenile, given under Section 94 of the JUVENILE JUSTICE ACT , 2015 (for short, 'the Act of 2015).

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners have also contended that learned trial Court did not conduct any inquiry as provided under Section 94 of the Act of 2015.

8. It is also submitted that the learned trial Court erred in not considering the date of birth mentioned in the school certificates of the petitioners. Learned counsel for petitioner-Krishna, has also submitted that the date of birth mentioned in the birth certificate of Krishna has also not been considered by the learned trial Court.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner-Abhishek, has contended that the date of birth mentioned in the certificate issued by Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan has also not been relied by the learned trial Court.

10. Learned counsel further submitted that the learned trial Court, without conducting proper inquiry and without taking evidence on record has wrongly discarded the birth certificates and the certificates issued by the school and the Board of Education.

11. Learned counsel have also contended that the learned trial Court has erred in relying on Bone Ossification Test alone and has erroneously declared the petitioners' age to be above 18 years. Therefore, it has been prayed that the impugned order of learned trial Court be quashed.

12. Learned counsel for the petitioners have placed reliance on the following judgments:

1. Parag Bhati (Juvenile) Through Legal Guardian- Mother-Rajni Bhati v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another: (2016) 12 SCC 744.

2. Shweta Gulati & Anr. v. The State of Govt. of NCT of Delhi: Crl.Rev. P. No.195/2018, dated 08.08.2018.

13. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no.2 have supported the impugned order and prayed for dismissal of the revision petitions.

14. Learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance upon a judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court p