The main legal point established is that a claim of juvenility can be raised at any stage of a criminal proceeding, and the burden is on the person raising the claim to satisfy the Court. The Court emphasized the need for evidence-based determination of age and the higher degree of proof required before the Juvenile Justice Board.

ORDER : – This criminal revision under section 397 read with 401 of Criminal Procedure Code has been preferred against the order dated 28-5-2021 passed by the Court of 2nd Additional Special Judge, Mandsaur in Special S.T. No. 42/2020, whereby the applicant’s application filed under section 94 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (in short JJ Act, 2015) for transferring his case to Juvenile Justice Board for trial was rejected.

2. Facts giving rise to this revision petition are that on 10-10-2020, the applicant along with other co-accused persons was found to have 60 kg of poppy straw in their illegal possession and is facing criminal trial in Special S.T. No. 42/2020 for the offences punishable under section 8(c)/15(c) of NDPS Act. In the said case, a charge-sheet was filed on 16-12-2020, and charges were framed on 18-3-2021, against the applicant and other co-accused persons, but till then applicant was not represented by any counsel, and on 17-5-2021, the first time his counsel appeared and filed his vakalatnama and found applicant’s age below 18 years. Then, on 18-5-2021, he moved an application under section 94 of the JJ Act, 2015 before the trial Court for transferring the case to the Juvenile Justice Board for trial. Learned trial Court conducted an inquiry and after getting verified the documents filed by the applicant in support of his aforesaid application, vide order dated 28-5-2021 rejected applicant’s application on the ground that application claiming juvenility was filed after framing of charges. Secondly, the school scholar register entry with regard to the date of birth of the applicant is doubtful and as per his Aadhar Card, his date of birth is 24-3-2000, according to which he was major at the time of the incident.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned trial Court has committed an error of law while not taking into consideration the documents filed by the applicant in support of his application filed under section 94 of the JJ Act, 2015. He further submits that exclusive jurisdiction for determination of the age of the applicant lies with the Juvenile Justice Board constituted under the Act of 2015 as held in the case of Indra Singh vs. State of M. P., 2017(1) MPWN 105. Hence, the learned trial Court has committed jurisdictional error in dismissing the application for determination of the age of the applicant. The impugned order is patently illegal and thus, is liable to be set aside.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent/State has opposed the prayer and submits that as per the applicant’s own document (Adhar Card) entry, he was major at the time of the incident. Hence, the learned trial Court has rightly dismissed the application filed by the applicant for referring the matter to Juvenile Justice Board.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.

6. From the perusal of the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 and also from the observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rishi Pal Singh Solanki vs. State of U. P. and others, 2021 SCC Online SC 1079, it is apparent that a claim of juvenility can be raised at any stage of a criminal proceeding, even after the final disposal of the case. A delay in raising the claim of juvenility cannot be a ground for rejection of the such claim and if an application is filed before the Court claiming juvenility, the provision of sub-section (2) of section 94 of the JJ Act, 2015 would have to be applied or read along with sub-section (2) of section 9, so as to seek evidence for the purpose of recording of finding stating the age of the person as nearly as may be. Relevant para of the aforesaid judgment passed in the case of Rishi Pal Singh Solanki vs. State of U. P. and others (supra) is as under:

“32. What emerges on a cumulative consideration of the aforesaid catena of judgments is as follows: (i) A claim of juvenility may be raised at an