JUDGMENT

Sanjay Kumar Pachori, J.

Heard Sri Pradeep Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Arpit Malviya, Advocate holding brief of Shri Awadhesh Kumar Malviya, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2, Sri Karunakar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.

2. The Present Criminal Revision has been preferred by the revisionist under section 102 of The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as "JJ Act, 2015") against the judgment dated 7.9.2021 passed by Special Judge, POCSO Act, Court No. 1, Ghazipur in Criminal Appeal No. 31 of 2021, whereby the appellate court has rejected the Criminal appeal and affirmed the order dated 26.2.2021 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Ghazipur, whereby the Juvenile Justice Board, sent the case of the Juvenile to Children's Court for trial.

3. Learned counsel for the revisionist has assailed the judgment and order dated 26.2.2021 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board and submits that the psychological test of the revisionist was held on 9.8.2018, which was conducted by Dr. M.C. Joshi, whereby the I.Q. level of the revisionist was determined 37.5, which is much below from the normal. On 25.2.2021, the revisionist was present before the Juvenile Justice Board where the Juvenile Court No. 83 Criminal Revision No. 2707 of 2021 Justice Board has asked some questions for assessing the revisionist understanding. After obtaining the psychological test report, on 25.2.2021 a test for understanding the nature of occurrence by the Juvenile Justice Board is highly illegal and against the provision of the Act.

4. It is further submitted that the Juvenile Justice Board without recording any reason as per provision of Rule 10A (4) of the Juvenile Justice Rules, 2016, impugned order has been passed. As per I.Q. level of the revisionist, which was found in a test report, his mental age would be as around 7 years as per the formula given by Stern and Kuhlmann in the year 1912.

5. It is further submitted that the preliminary assessment having been made after more than 3 years and 3 months from the date of production of the revisionist is in contravention of section 14(3) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.

6. It is further submitted that the first information report of the present case was lodged on 24.11.2017. The impugned order has been passed by the Juvenile Justice Board after three years and three months of apprehending of the revisionist before the Juvenile Justice Board without extending the period of inquiry. The impugned orders are liable to the set aside. Learned counsel for the revisionist relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in case of Barun Chandra Thakur v. Master Bholu and Another 2022 SCC Online SC 870 and Shilpa Mittal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Another (2020) 2 SCC 787.

7. Per contra; learned A.G.A. for the State as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 have defended the impugned judgment and order passed by the Appellate Court and contended that the revisionist has committed a heinous crime. Considering the gravity of the offence, the present criminal revision is liable to be dismissed.

8. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.

9. The first information report dated 24.11.2017 was lodged by father of the deceased against the revisionist and two other named persons stating that his daughter, aged about 15 years, along with her