JUDGMENT :

J.J. MUNIR, J.

1. The revisionist insists that he is a child – a child in conflict with law within the meaning of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court no.1, Mainpuri has disagreed with his contention vide an order dated 27.03.2017 made in Criminal Appeal no.46 of 2016 filed under Section 101 of the Act by opposite party no.2, Sarvendra Singh, and found him to be an adult on the date of commission of the offence, giving rise to Case Crime no.769 of 2018, under Section 302 IPC, Police Station Kotwali, District Mainpuri. The revisionist had persuaded the Juvenile Justice Board, Mainpuri in Misc. Enquiry no.55 of 2015, State vs. Rishi Chauhan, relating to the case crime under reference, to find him a juvenile on the date of occurrence, by their order dated 16.09.2016 that has since been reversed in appeal. The event in the appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge has brought the revisionist to this Court under Section 102 of the Act, asking that the order of the Juvenile Justice Board be restored, and, that of the Appellate Court set aside.

2. Heard Sri Raghuvansh