IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL REVISION NO.196 of 2008 Suresh Pal … Revisionist Versus State of Uttarakhand and another … Respondents Dated: April 09, 2009 Sri Nagesh Aggarwal, learned counsel for the revisionist Sri M.A. Khan, learned Brief Holder for the State/Respondent No.1 Sri Deepak Sharma, learned counsel for respondent no.2 HON. DHARAM VEER, J. This criminal revision, preferred under Section 53 of The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter to be referred as the Act), is directed against the judgment and order dated 16.9.2008 passed by Sessions Judge, Hardwar in Crl. Appeal No.21 of 2008, Suresh Pal Vs. State of Uttarakhand and another and also against the judgment and order dated 16.4.2008 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Hardwar in Crl. Case. No.4788 of 2008, State vs. Sachin @ Bhullan. 2. Heard Sri Nagesh Aggarwal, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri M.A. Khan, learned Brief Holder for the State/Respondent No.1 and Sri Deepak Sharma, learned counsel for respondent no.2 and perused the entire material available in file. 3. In brief, the facts of the case are that respondent no.2-Sachin is an accused in Case Crime No.78/2007 u/s 366-A IPC, P.S. Jhabrera, Distt. Hardwar. Respondent No.2 moved an application for declaring him juvenile. The Juvenile Justice Board, Hardwar vide order dated 6.10.2007 declared the respondent no.2 juvenile on the ground that his date of birth is 1.5.1990 mentioned in the High School Certificate and as per the report of CJM, Hardwar dated 22.9.2007, his age is about 17 years of age. Against that order, the revisionist-Suresh Pal preferred an appeal u/s 52 of the Act. The said appeal was allowed by Sessions Judge, Hardwar vide judgment and order dated 3.11.2007 and the case was remanded to the Juvenile Justice Board, Hardwar to decide the case again in the light of the observations made in the judgment. After the remand of the case, the Juvenile Justice Board, Hardwar per order dated 16.4.2008 again declared the respondent no.2-Sachine juvenile. Against the said judgment and order dated 16.4.2008, the revisionist-Suresh Pal again preferred an appeal u/s 52 of the Act before Sessions Judge, Hardwar. Learned Sessions Judge, Hardwar per judgment and order dated 16.9.2008 dismissed the said appeal. Feeling aggrieved with the said judgment and orders dated 16.9.2008 and 16.4.2008, the revisionist has preferred the present revision. 4. Sri Nagesh Aggarwal, learned counsel for the revisionist has argued that the date of birth of respondent no.2 mentioned in the High School Certificate i.e. 1.5.1990 is not correct and justified. I do not find any force in this argument. Before further discussion, it is pertinent to mention that the Juvenile has been defined in Section 2(k) of the Act which reads as under: - 2(k) “juvenile” or “child” means a person who has not completed eighteenth year of age;” Rule 22(5) of U.P. Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2004 is also relevant to mention here which is reproduced as under: - 22(5) In every case concerning a juvenile or child, the Board shall either obtain- (i) a birth certificate given by a corporation or a municipal authority; or (ii) a date of birth certificate from the school first attended; or (iii) matriculation or equivalent certificates, if available; and (iv) in the absence of (i) to (iii) above, the medical opinion by a duly constituted Medical Board, subject to a margin of one year, in deserving cases for the reasons to be recorded by such Medical Board, regarding his age, and, when passing orders in such case shall, after taking into consideration such evidence as may be available or the medical opinion, as the case may be, record a finding in respect of his age. 5. In the present case the incident in question is said to be happened on 10.9.2007. As per the High School Certificate of Respondent No.2, his date of birth is 1.5.1990. Even as per the report given by CMO, Hardwar dated 22.9.2007, the age of respondent no.2 is about 17 years. As such, on the date of incident, the respondent no.2 was aged about 17 years and four months. Therefore, the Juvenile Justice Board as well as Sessions Judge, Hardwar have rightly calculated the age of the respondent no.2 as 17 years and four months on the date of incident i.e. 10.09.2007. As such, he was rightly been declared Juvenile by the courts below. 6. In view of the above, I do not find any illegality, impropriety or incorrectness in the impugned judgment and order dated 16.9.2008 passed by Sessions Judge, Hardwar and judgment and order dated 16.4.2008 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Hardwar. 7. For the reasons recorded above, the revision is devoid of merits and the same is hereby dismissed. (Dharam Veer, J.) April 09, 2009 Rajeev Dang