ORDER :

1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, Shri Vijay Prakash Dwivedi, learned AGA for the State and perused the material available on record.

2. The instant Criminal Revision under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2015 has been filed against the judgment and order dated 28.2.2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Sultanpur in Special Sessions Trial No. 537 of 2018 arising out of case crime No. 423 of 2017, U/s 354(B) IPC and Section 17/18 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012, Police Station-Lambhua, District-Sultanpur, whereby the application for declaring the revisionist as juvenile in conflict with law has been rejected.

3. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the revisionist preferred an application for declaring his juvenility before the trial court U/s 9 of Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (in short "the Act, 2015"). The trial court recorded the findings that the family register issued by the Panchayat is not admitted as a proof of age under the provision of section 94 of the Act, 2015, which is contrary to the view held by the Apex Court. But the said application of the revisionist was rejected by the learned trial court without appreciating the evidence available on record and without observing the procedure as prescribed U/s 9 and 94 of the Act, 2015 on 28.2.2023. The said sections 9 and 94 of the Act, 2015 read as under:

"9. Procedure to be followed by a Magistrate who has not been empowered under this Act.-(1) When a Magistrate, not empowered to exercise the powers of the Board under this Act is of the opinion that the person alleged to have committed the offence and brought before him is a child, he shall, without any delay, record such opinion and forward the child immediately along with the record of such proceedings to the Board having jurisdiction.

(2) In case a person alleged to have committed an offence claims before a court other than a Board, that the person is a child or was a child on the date of commission of the offence, or if the court itself is of the opinion that the person was a child on the date of commission of the offence, the said court shall make an inquiry, take such evidence as may be necessary (but not an affidavit) to determine the age of such person, and shall record a finding on the matter, stating the age of the person as nearly as may be:

Provided that such a claim may be raised before any court and it shall be recognised at any stage, even after final disposal of the case, and such a claim shall be determined in accordance with the provisions contained in this Act and the rules made thereunder even if the person has ceased to be a child on or before the date of commencement of this Act.

(3) If the court finds that a person has committed an offence and was a child on the date of commission of such offence, it shall forward the child to the Board for passing appropriate orders and the sentence, if any, passed by the court shall be deemed to have no effect.

(4) In case a person under this section is required to be kept in protective custody, while the person's claim of being a child is being inquired into, such person may be placed, in the intervening period in a place of safety.

94. Presumption and determination of age.-(1) Where, it is obvious to the Committee or the Board, based on the appearance of the person brought before it under any of the provisions of this Act (other than for the purpose of giving evidence) that the said person is a child, the Committee or the Board shall record such observation stating the age of the child as nearly as may be and proceed with the inquiry under section 14 or section 36, as the case may be, without waiting for further confirmation of the age.

(2) In case, the Committee or the Board has reasonable grounds for doubt regarding whether the person brought before it is a child or not, the Committee or the B