JUDGMENT :

RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.

1. The present revision has been filed under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection) Act, 2015 (JJ Act) against the order dated 28.06.2023 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Shimla in Criminal Appeal No. 49-S/10 of 2022, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order passed by learned Juvenile Justice Board dated 09.11.2022 was ordered to be transferred to learned Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court (Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act), (POCSO Act) Shimla, H.P.

2. It has been asserted that as per the prosecution, the Police Station, Chopal, received information on 14.02.2022 at around 12:04 pm that a 7-year-old girl was brought to the hospital in a rape case. The father of the victim made a statement that the victim had gone to the house of the present petitioner to play with him. She returned after 20 minutes. She had a pain in her stomach. When the enquiry was made by the victim’s mother, she revealed that the petitioner had raped her. The police registered the FIR No. 17/2021 and conducted the investigation. The police report was filed before the Juvenile Justice Board, Shimla. The petitioner was referred to a panel of Psychologists for preliminary assessment in terms of Section 15 of the JJ Act. The panel of Doctors submitted a report and the Board passed an order transferring the case to Children’s Court for trial. The petitioner filed an appeal against the order of the Board before the learned Sessions Judge, Shimla. The appeal was disposed of by learned Sessions Judge, Shimla on 28.06.2023 without deciding it on merits by transferring it to the Court of learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court (POCSO) for disposal. The appeal was maintainable only before the Sessions Court and could not have been transferred to the Children (POCSO) Court; therefore, it was prayed that the present revision be allowed and the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge be set aside.

3. I have heard Mr. Harish Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Avni Kochhar, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent/State.

4. Mr. Harish Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the appeal lies before the Sessions Court under Section 101(2) of the JJ Act. Learned Sessions Judge erred in transferring the appeal to the Children's Court, therefore, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the order passed by learned Session Court be set aside.

5. Ms. Avni Kochhar, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent/State supported the order passed by the learned Sessions Court and submitted that no interference is required with the same.

6. I have given considerable thought to the submissions at the bar and have gone through the record carefully.

7. The Juvenile Justice Board conducted the investigation and passed an order under Section 15 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2015 as is apparent from Para 21 of the order passed. An appeal lies against the order passed under Section 15 and Section 101(2) of the JJ Act before the Sessions Court. Section 101(2) of the Act reads as under:

“101. Appeals:

(1) xxx xxx xxx

(2) An appeal shall lie against an order of the board passed after making the preliminary assessment into a heinous offence under section 15 of the Act, before the Court of Sessions and the Court may, while deciding the appeal, take the assistance of experienced psychologists and medical specialists other than those whose assistance has been obtained by the Board in passing the order under the said section.”

8. It is apparent from the bare language of Section that an appeal lies against the order of the Board making the preliminary assessment under Section 15 before the Court of Sessions. The learned Sessions Judge relied upon Section 101 (1) and Section 2(20) of the JJ Act; however, it deals with other orders passed by the Board. Section 101 (1) of the JJ Act did not apply because a specific provision namely Section