Hon’ble Harsh Kumar, J.—This revision has been filed against the order dated 13.12.2000 passed by Second Additional Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad in Sessions Trial No. 154 of 1991 (State v. Manoj and others) under Sections 307 and 302 I.P.C. Police Station Sahani Gate, District Ghaziabad whereby the trial Court has refused to treat the applicant-revisionist to be a ‘juvenile in conflict with law’, and entitled to the benefits under provisions of Juvenile Justice Act.

The Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 and Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, shall herein after be mentioned as 1986 Act and 2000 Act respectively.

2. The brief facts relating to the case are that regarding the occurrence of murder, at 9.15 a.m. on 3.11.1990, an F.I.R. was lodged, naming the revisionist and others, and role of firing as well as causing of fatal fire arm injuries to the deceased was assigned to the revisionist, who surrendered before the Magistrate on 8.11.1990. After filing of charge-sheet the case was committed to sessions on 31.5.1991 and charges were framed against revisionist as well as other accused on 23.1.1992. After completion of prosecution evidence, the statement of accused-revisionist was recorded on 26.5.1999 and again on 11.10.1999 under provisions of Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure. On 31.5.1999 the revisionist moved an application before the Additional Sessions Judge claiming himself to be juvenile on the date of occurrence, in view of his date of birth 6.6.1975 and also filed a copy of school transfer certificate having entry of his date of birth as above on the basis of which bail was granted to him vide order dated 2.9.1992. The trial Court after hearing, disbelieved the date of birth in school transfer certificate, and rejected his application for treating him juvenile vide order dated 9.2.2000.

Against the order dated 9.2.2000 rejecting application of juvenility, the revisionist filed Criminal Revision No. 347 of 2000 before this Court, which was allowed vide order dated 28.2.2000 and setting aside order dated 9.2.2000, the lower Court was directed to determine the age of revisionist at the time of commission of offence after receiving the medical report.

3. In furtherance of the order passed by this Court on 28.2.2000 in Criminal Revision No. 347 of 2000, the trial Court called for the report of Medical Panel Board, duly constituted by Chief Medical Officer, Ghaziabad and in report of Medical Panel Board dated 7.11.2000, age of revisionist Manoj was determined at about 25 years. Upon receipt of medical report and hearing the parties counsel the trial Court again on 3.12.2000 refused to declare the revisionist to be a juvenile and rejecting his application fixed the case for defence evidence and accused Manoj preferred this revision which was heard and dismissed by this Court, vide order dated 12.9.2006 directing the trial Court to proceed with the case, expeditiously.

4. Feeling aggrieved with above order dated 12.9.2006, the revisionist filed Criminal Appeal No. 920 of 2014 before the Hon’ble Apex Court, which was allowed vide order dated 21.4.2014 directing this Court to reconsider the controversy on the issue of juvenility, with reference to Rule 12 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rule, 2007 and to decide the issue as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order.

5. Heard Shri Shyam Lal learned counsel for the revisionist and learned AGA for the State.

Learned counsel for the revisionist argued that it is not disputed that according to the prosecution case, revisionist is the main accused and role of causing fatal fire arm injury has been assigned to him in the occurrence of murder dated 3.11.1990; that undisputedly the revisionist had surrendered before the Magistrate on 8.11.1990 and though he claimed himself to be juvenile in bail application and considering his date of birth 6.6.1975, he was granted ba