IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.386 of 2010 1. BABLOO KUMAR PASWAN @ BABLOO PASWAN @ DHARMPAL MANI S/O JAI MANGAL PASWAN @ JAI MANGAL PRASAD R/O VILL.- KHARJAMMA WARD NO.- 2, P.S.- MAHNAR DISTT.- VAISHALI -- Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR --Opp.Party For the Petitioner : Mr. Arbind Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, APP. ----------- 04 11.08.2010 Heard both sides. Petitioner, who is claiming himself to be a juvenile, has approached this Court against the order dated 19.02.2010, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court no.IV Vaishali at Hajipur in Sessions Trial no. 372/09, ( State versus Babloo Paswan), whereby his claim for being declared juvenile was considered and rejected. It was found that the transfer certificate procured and produced by the petitioner showing his date of birth as 04.5.1991 did not relate to the petitioner. This Court by order dated 22.03.2010, called for a report from the trial Court regarding the age of the petitioner. It appears that trial Court, once again, made enquiry into the claim of the petitioner in terms of Section 7A of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) and came to the same conclusion that the transfer certificate produced by the petitioner did not relate to the petitioner who was being prosecuted as Babloo Paswan S/o Jai Mangal Paswan whereas the transfer 2 certificate related to one Dharmpal Mani S/o Jai Mangal Prasad. The said order has been brought on record by way of supplementary affidavit. I have perused the order. Parties were allowed to adduce evidence and the Court below appraised their evidence and thereafter came to the said conclusion. However, trial Court has directed the Civil Surgeon, Hajipur, to constitute a Medical Board, and to examine the petitioner in order to assess his age. It, thus, appears that the claim of the petitioner for declaring him as juvenile on the date of occurrence (18.11.2007) is still under consideration of the Court below. In that view of the matter, the present application is premature. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. Sym ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)