( 1 ) THE neat legal question which is involved in this application is as to whether Sessions Judge had got the power of Juvenile Justice Board in consonance with Section 6 (2) of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2000, (Act no. 56 of 2000) or not? The contention of sri V. P. Srivastava, learned Senior Counsel for the applicant, Manish Tyagi is that under the aforesaid sub-section. Sessions judge as well as the High Court has been statutorily conferred with such power visa-vis Juvenile Justice Board. The submission is that in view of the provision of Section 6 (2) of the Act there cannot be another inquiry by Juvenile Justice Board for determining as to whether the accused is a Juvenile of not once the inquiry conducted by the Additional Sessions Judge has declared him to be such. Before determining the proposition of law harangued by the applicant a thumb nail description of the facts seems to be indispensable which is sketched below.

( 2 ) THE applicant, as is perceptible from the pleading made in the affidavit appended along with this Criminal Misc. Application, under Section 482 Cr. P. C, invoking the inherent power of this Court, are that the applicant is a socio criminals for an offence under Section 302 I. P. C. vide Crime No. 83 of 2005. FIR was lodged by Sri Om in respect of said incident alleged to have taken place on 11-4-2005 at 6. 30 p. m. Investigation into the crime charge sheeted the applicant as accused for the said offence and the applicant start facing trial before Additional Sessions Judge, court No. 3, Mathura in S. T. No. 574 of 2005.

( 3 ) DURING the course of the trial the applicant Manish Tyagi moved an application oh 11-4-2005 that he was below 18 years Of age and hence he was a juvenile, Resultantly he prayed that he should be declared a juvenile and be ordered to be dealt with as such in accordance with the provisions of juvenile Justice Act 2000. Additional Sessions Judge. Court No. 3 Meerut who is seized of the aforesaid S. T. No. 574 of 2005 conducted an inquiry and examined jugneshwar father of the applicant as C. W. 1, Pandit Chitranjan Sharma (who had prepared the horoscope of the applicant) as C. W. 2 and Surendra Kumar as C. W. 3 (who is principal of Janta Inter-College, Kethwari where the applicant had studied from 6 standard up to intermediate ). According to the Statement of C. W. 3, the date of birth of the applicant was recorded in the school register as 23-9-1987.

( 4 ) ADDITIONAL Sessions Judge after critically appreciating the evidence led by the aforesaid witnesses came to the conclusion that the applicant Manish Tyagi was less than 18 years of age at the time of the incident and hence was a juvenile. He conste quently referred the case of the applicant to juvenile Justice Board, Meerut to be dealt with in consonance with the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act.

( 5 ) BEFORE the Board the applicant moved his bail application in the aforesaid crime for the aforesaid offence on which Juvenile justice Board vide its impugned order dated 1-3-2007 held that the Sessions Judge had no power to declare applicant to be a juvenile as that power is vested with the board which is functioning since last many years and hence it ordered to conduct a fresh inquiry for determination of the age of the applicant to judge whether the applicant is a juvenile or not? Hence, this Criminal Misc. Application challenging the said order by the board.

( 6 ) I have heard Sri V. P. Srivastava, learned Senior Counsel in support of this application and learned A. G. A. in opposition and have gone though the impugned order and material place on the record, of this application.

( 7 ) SINCE the controversy involved in this application centres around Section 6 of juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of children) Act 2000, (Act No. 5. 6 of 2000), hereinafter referred to as the Act the said section is quoted below :-

"6. Power of Juvenile Justice Board- (1)Where a Board has been constituted for a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document