PATNA, July 16 -- The Patna high court on Tuesday imposed a penalty of Rs.10,000 on the counsel for a rape convict for allegedly suppressing facts and making a "frivolous and fictitious" plea to have the accused declared a juvenile. A division bench of Justice Rajiv Ranjan Prasad and Justice Ashok Kumar Pandey observed, "The Court is of the considered opinion that the application seeking the plea of juvenility is a frivolous and fictitious kind of application which is liable to be rejected with cost." The court directed the appellant to deposit the amount with the Patna High Court Legal Services Committee within eight weeks. When confronted with discrepancies in the application, advocate Niranjan Kumar was asked to explain why he had ignored materials available on record and why the matter should not be referred to the Bihar State Bar Council for an inquiry into his professional conduct. The counsel admitted to not thoroughly examining the trial court records but claimed the oversight was unintentional. He sought an unconditional apology and assured the court that such an error would not be repeated. In view of his apology, the court refrained from referring the matter to the Bar Council but emphasized caution in the future. The bench also directed that a copy of the order be sent to the National Institute of Open Schooling (NIOS), noting that the institute had accepted an Aadhaar card-prepared during the appellant's incarceration-listing his date of birth as February 3, 2004, without proper verification. The appellant had sought to be declared a juvenile under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, and requested his release on the grounds that he had already undergone more than the maximum statutory punishment of three years. He was convicted on July 20, 2018, by a trial court under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act in connection with a case registered at Tariyani police station in Sheohar district. He was sentenced to life imprisonment and fined Rs.1 lakh, with an additional two years of rigorous imprisonment in case of default. The appellant claimed that according to a certificate issued by NIOS and supporting documents dated January 20, 2023, his date of birth was February 3, 2004. Based on this, it was argued that he was only 13 years and 8 months old on the date of the incident-October 1, 2017. However, a report submitted by the Circle Officer based on an affidavit by the appellant's father stated that while his third son, Babloo Kumar, was born on January 1, 1998, the fourth son, Pujan Kumar, was born on January 1, 2000, and the fifth son, the appellant Rajan Kumar, was born on February 3, 2004. The Aadhaar card and other materials raised serious questions about the authenticity of the claim. The court concluded that the juvenility plea was an attempt to mislead and waste judicial time....