This Criminal Revision Case has been filed against the order passed by the Court of District & Sessions Judge/Mahila Court, Cuddalore in Crl.M.P.No.20 of 2017 in Spl.S.C.No.12 of 2016, dated 09.06.2017.

2. The facts of the case in nutshell are as follows:

That the respondent/prosecution had filed the charge sheet against the revision petitioner under Section 3 read with 4 and 7 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012, hereinafter referred to as POCSO Act. According to the prosecution, the petitioner/accused, born on 27.02.1997 and therefore, he completed 18 years of age on 27.02.2015. The charge sheet was filed against the petitioner by the prosecution on the basis of the complaint of defacto complainant/victim, who made a complaint against the petitioner on 17.12.2015 based on which, a FIR was registered and on investigation, a charge sheet was laid against the petitioner.

3. In the said complaint, the defacto complainant/victim had categorically stated that the petitioner/accused had made the victim to believe that, he would marry the victim and on that strength, he had private affairs with the victim and with the result, the victim gave birth to a female child on 27.01.2014. Therefore, the revision petitioner/accused and the defacto complainant/victim, had lived together and just eight months prior to the date of the complaint, the revision petitioner/accused left the victim and she came to understand that the accused married another girl and that is the reason why the victim had given the complaint as stated above, based on which, the investigation was made and the charge sheet was laid. In this regard, the prosecution had filed a case in J.C.No.24 of 2016 under Section 34 of POCSO Act.

4. Whileso, the prosecution referred the matter to the Juvenile Justice Board of Cuddalore in J.C.No.24 of 2016 where, the Juvenile Board, by order dated 09.11.2016, declared that the offence alleged against the revision petitioner was a continuous one as till prior to eight months of the complaint since the revision petitioner had been together with the victim and the date of the complaint was on 17.12.2015 and the revision petitioner came to be major on 27.02.2015. Therefore, it can be arrived at that, during the last living together of both the revision petitioner/accused and the victim, till April 2015, the revision petitioner being an adulecent became major in the month of February 2015 and the alleged occurrence was stretched upto April 2015, the question posed before the Board was as to whether the alleged juvenile since became adult in half way through of the occurrence, can be decided accordingly. As the accused has become major in February 2015 and the alleged occurrence though was stretched upto April 2015, since he became major, the Board cannot decide the issue and accordingly, the Board, by the said Order dated 09.11.2016, directed transfer of the case to the Mahila Court, Cuddalore.

5. With the result, the case was transferred to the Mahila Court, Cuddalore which is a Special Court for POCSO Act, 2012 in Spl.S.C.No.12 of 2016. Before the said Special Court, the revision petitioner had moved a petition under Section 34 of the POCSO Act and seeks a direction from the Special Court, to refer the matter to the Juvenile Justice Board, Cuddalore to dispose of the same under the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, on the strength of the alleged fact that the revision petitioner was minor during the alleged incident in the year 2013 as has been alleged by the victim in the complaint.

6. The said Special Court, after having considered this factual matrix of the case as well as the legal position, has come to a conclusion that the decision of the Juvenile Justice Board, Cuddalore was justifiable and found that the revision petitioner/accused, became major during the half way through of the continuous occurrence allegedly happened against the victim and therefore, the revision petitioner cannot be treated as a juvenile, for