1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR S.B. Crl. Miscellaneous Petition No.430/2010 (Omprakash Budanak Vs. State of Rajasthan) Date of Order : 15.03.2010 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.N. BHANDARI Mr.Akhil Simlote, for the petitioner. Mr.Laxman Meena, PP. By the Court: By this miscellaneous petition, a challenge has been made to the order dated 29.01.2010. It is stated that petitioner moved an application pursuant to the provisions of Section 7A of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 2000”) therein it was alleged that petitioner's date of birth is 27.05.1992 and the occurrence took place on 5.03.2009, thus at the time of incident, the petitioner was at the age of 16 years and 9 months, thus petitioner is entitled for benefit of the Act of 2000. The learned Court below, however, taken date of birth of the petitioner as 07.12.1988 held that at the time of occurrence, the petitioner was at the age of more than 20 years, thus not eligible to seek benefit of the Act of 2000. It is urged that finding so recorded by the Court below is an ignorance to the school certificate submitted by the accused along with the statement of 2 headmaster of the school and his father, thus the impugned order calls for interference of this Court. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. Perusal of record shows that Court below has taken into consideration all the aspects of the matter and for that purpose, not only the statements of the witnesses but documents produced by the parties were also considered. It has been seen that there exists three different birth certificate of the petitioner containing different date of birth. Out of many, one certificate was issued by the Government School. Taking note of the aforesaid documents to be genuine and after marshaling over all evidences, the Court below came to the conclusion that at the time of incident, petitioner was more than the age of 18 years, thus not entitled for benefit of the Act of 2000, thus the finding of the facts so arrived cannot be said to be perverse. Looking to the aforesaid, I do not find any error in the impugned order dated 29.01.2010, hence the miscellaneous petition so preferred by the petitioner is dismissed, accordingly. (M.N. BHANDARI),J. Preety Item NO.6