IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.720 of 2011 Kanhai Kumar, son of Girbal Prasad @ Girmal Sao resident of village Sabalpur, P.S. Dildarganj, Patna at present residing at Janta Pathgali No.3, Chandmari road P.S. Kankerbagh, Patna …Petitioner Versus The State Of Bihar …Opposite party For the petitioner :Mr. Anant Kr. Bhaskar For the State :Mrs. Indu Bala Pandey, APP ----------- 02. 27.06.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. Present application has been filed for setting aside the order dated 01.04.2011, passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, III, Patna City, whereby the prayer of the petitioner to declare him juvenile on the date of occurrence, i.e., 20.01.2010 in terms of the provisions contained in Juvenile Justice(Care & Protection of Children)Act,2000 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), has been considered and rejected. An FIR was lodged against unknown on 22.01.2010 under sections 364A IPC. Subsequently, section 302 IPC was added therein. The investigation found the complicity of the petitioner and few others. Accordingly, they were made accuseds and ultimately charge-sheet was submitted against the petitioner and few others. The matter thereafter was committed and was pending trial before the learned trial court. On 18.01.2011, an application was filed by the petitioner seeking an enquiry as contemplated in the Act and to declare him juvenile. Petitioner produced the following documents: 2 Mark sheet, Registration Card and Admit Card, issued by the Bihar School Examination Board(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Board), Character Certificate granted in 2008 by the Principal of the school in question and certificate with respect to result issued by District Evaluation Committee, Patna. Petitioner also contended that in the year 2008 he was made accused in a criminal case wherein, on a claim being raised on his behalf, the court below by order dated 14.01.2011, passed in S.Tr.No.1551/09 declared him juvenile. It is submitted that learned court below committed illegality in not making enquiry in terms of section 7A of the Act read with Rule 12 of the Bihar Juvenile Justice(Care & Protection of Children)Rules, 2007( hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’). It is submitted that going by the terms spelt out in Rule subjecting an applicant for his assessment of age by the Medical Board is the last resort. Learned counsel further highlighted the provisions contained in Rule 12(3) (b) of the Rules in order to submit that in case the court prefers to rely on the assessment of age by the Medical Board, it ought to have considered his age on lower side with the margin of one year. It is contended that the said mandate of law has not been kept in focus by learned trial court. Petitioner asserts that he is ready and willing to produce the evidence in support of the documents relied upon but the learned trial court did not ask him to do so and passed 3 the impugned order. Counsel further states that the petitioner shall endeavour to file the matriculation certificate issued by the Board apart from other material/evidence. Learned APP, on the other hand, simply supported the impugned order. The Act is a beneficial legislation. The court, therefore, has to deal with the matter liberally. Rule 12(3) sets out in detail the manner in which such claim has to be laid and considered. It appears that some of the documents produced on behalf of the petitioner were issued by the Board in connection with his matriculation examination. It also appears that those documents were prima facie found genuine documents and relied upon by a court in declaring him juvenile in connection with S. Tr. No.1551/09. There is no dispute that such claim can be raised at any stage of the proceeding. Once such claim is raised, the court is obliged to institute an enquiry after being prima facie satisfied about the genuineness of the claim. Rule 12(3) guides the court in making such enquiry as contemplated under the Act. It appears that the documents placed at annexure- 2 series were considered and the petitioner was declared juvenile in another criminal trial. Even if the trial court, in its wisdom, did not find the contents of the documents duly proved by adducing evidence and preferred to rely on the assessment of age made by Medical Board (Annexure-3), it appears that learned trial court failed to notice the relevant 4 provisions of the Rules. It appears from annexure-3 that the Board assessed his age between 19 to 20 years. It does not appear therefrom that such assessment of age was made with reference to the date of occurrence. There appears to be a time gap of more than ten months between the date of occurrence and date of report(Annexure-3). I have already noticed that even in the matter of assessment of age based on the report of the Medical Board the court has to give leverage. Learned trial court has not considered the matter keeping in focus the facts highlighted hereinabove. For all these reasons, this Court is satisfied that the order requires to be interfered with and set aside. Accordingly, I set aside the order dated 01.04.2011, passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge III, Patna City in S.T.No.965/2010 and remit the case back to the court below for fresh consideration and disposal in accordance with law. Petitioner shall co-operative with the court in expeditious disposal of the matter. hr ( Kishore K. Mandal )