JUDGMENT :

JYOTSNA SHARMA, J.

1. Heard Sri Arvind Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Ashok Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 and Sri O.P. Mishra, learned AGA for the State.

2. This Criminal Revision has been filed on behalf of the revisionist through his mother challenging the impugned orders dated 10.01.2022 passed by learned Additional Session Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Court No. 1, Gorakhpur in Criminal Appeal No. 62 of 2021 as well as impugned order dated 04.03.2021 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Gorakhpur in Case Crime No. 147 of 2019, under Sections 363, 366, 376, 342, 506 IPC, Section 3/4 of POCSO Act and Section 3(2)5 of SC/ST Act, Police Station-Barahalganj, District Gorakhpur by which a preliminary assessment inquiry was ordered to be conducted and that order was affirmed by the appellate court.

3. The relevant facts giving rise to this revision are as below:

An FIR, Case Crime No. 0147 of 2019 under Sections 366 and 342 IPC, was registered against the juvenile and after investigation, charge-sheet was submitted under Sections 363, 366, 376, 342, 506 IPC, Section 3/4 of POCSO Act and Section 3(2)5 of SC/ST Act; an application was moved before the court concerned Special Judge (POCSO Act) to declare him ‘child in conflict with law’ stating therein that his recorded date of birth was 19.04.2002, therefore, he was merely 16 years 11 months and 15 days on the date of occurrence; his mother and another witness Ajay Kumar of Surya Bal Vidya Mandir, Gorakhpur were examined; the court noticed the fact that in the marksheet of high school, his date of birth was shown as 19.04.2002; other witness who too was examined on behalf of the juvenile deposed that as per the record of this school, his date of birth was 01.07.2003; the court gave an opinion that in both the contingencies, the applicant was below 18 years, therefore, he was declared a ‘child in conflict with law’ and the file was transmitted to the Juvenile Justice Board by order dated 20.10.2020; an application by the informant was, thereafter, moved before the Juvenile Justice Board submitting that the juvenile was admittedly above 16 years of age, hence, an inquiry under Section 15 of the Juvenile Justice Act was incumbent to be conducted. The Juvenile Justice Board ordered for enquiry on 04.03.2021 and that order was affirmed in appeal on 10.01.2022. This revision has been filed challenging the aforesaid orders.

4. Both the sides were heard and perused the papers.

5. When the question of applicability of Section-15 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 was raised, the Juvenile Justice Board had to deal with his two dates of birth. Firstly, 19.04.2002 as shown in his high school marksheet. Secondly, 01.07.2003 as shown in the papers of the school first attended by him. The Juvenile Justice Board was of the opinion that the date of birth as given in high school certificate was reliable and thus he was adjudged as above 16 years of age. Consequently, an order for conducting preliminary assessment under Section 15 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 was passed on 04.03.2021. In the appeal filed on behalf of the minor, the appellate court was of the view that the genuineness of the high school marksheet was verified by the concerned police station and that his mother also stated that his date of birth was 19.04.2002, hence, that date of birth should be relied upon.

6. The impugned orders have been challenged specifically on two grounds.

Firstly, that the Principal of the institution which he attended first, was examined and he proved his date of birth, on the basis whereof his age came merely 15 years 9 months, hence, there was no reason to apply provisions of Section-15 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 and conduct a preliminary assessment; therefore, the order for inquiry is illegal and void.

Secondly, as the provisions of law required that preliminary assessment must be carried out within 3 months of first production of a ‘child in confli