IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.521 of 2008 LALBABU SINGH Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. BHIM KUMAR @ BHIM SINGH ----------- 3 16.12.2008 This revision has been preferred under Section 53 of the Juvenile Justice A(Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2001 against the order dated 21.4.2008 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 20/08 thereby the order dated 11.1.2008 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Saran at Chapra in Juvenile Trial No.444/08 wherein the opposite party no.2 has been declared as juvenile has been affirmed. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the order of the court below is bad in law .The courts below have not considered properly the school leaving certificate as well as the report of the medical board and have wrongly held that on the alleged date of occurrence the opposite party no.2 was juvenile i.e. less than eighteen years. It is further submitted that at the time of production before the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate estimated the age of the petitioner as 19 years. In charge- sheet also the age of opposite party no.2 has been given as 19-20 years (annexures 5 and 6). On the other hand learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 submitted that there is no illegality or impropriety in the impugned order. The courts below have assessed the age of opposite party no.2 on the basis of school transfer certificate as well as the - 2 - report of the medical board as also the oral evidenced. It is further submitted that the date of occurrence is 11.8.2007 and according to school certificate the date of birth of opposite party is 17.12.1991.In other words, on the alleged date of occurrence the opposite party no.2 was less than eighteen years. Similarly the medical board vide its report dated 23.11.2007 (annexure-6) assessed the age of opposite party no.2 as 19/20 years. It is, therefore, submitted that as per the decision of the Apex Court and Rule, if one year margin is given the age of opposite party no.2 on the alleged date of occurrence comes to less than eighteen years. Considered the submission of learned counsel for both parties as well as the report of the Medical Board as also school certificate. According to both the documents, on the alleged date of occurrence, the age of opposite party no.2 was less than eighteen years. Thus, the opposite party no.2 on the alleged date of the occurrence was juvenile. Thus, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case as well as documents adduced in course of inquiry, I find no merit in this application. Accordingly, this revision application is dismissed. B.Jha (Ghanshyam Prasad)