Criminal Revision No.465 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.465 of 2011 Date of decision:- 23.2.2011 Sonu ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present:- Mr. Vishal Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. RITU BAHRI J. Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 01.11.2010 passed by the Sessions Judge, Yamuna Nagar, vide which an application, moved by the accused for treating him as juvenile has been dismissed. Mr. Vishal Gupta, Advocate counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that he had led evidence to prove the date of birth as Ex. AW1/A, which is school leaving certificate, which was produced by the witness from the school Amit Kumar-teacher (AW1). This has been disbelieved as it was not the original document and neither it was prepared by the witness. The teacher AW1 could not produce any proof that he was employed as teacher in the said school. Nor any authority letter from the principal of the school was brought by him. The school leaving Certificate Ex. AW1/B was produced, which has also been disbelieved. Counsel for the petitioner argues that there was no other evidence available, which could be produced to prove the date of birth. Relies on Section 35 of the Evidence Act to contend that these public documents are to be treated as genuine. One another document Ex. AW2/A, which is a Criminal Revision No.465 of 2011 -2- photostat copy of the family record extracted from the register of the Chowkidar of the Village, has also been wrongly disbelieved on the ground that it is not verified by the Panchayat Secretary or any official of the Panchayat. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the records of the case file carefully. No benefit of Section 35 of the Evidence Act can be admissible to prove the documents as genuine as they are neither from the public or from the official book, register or record or electronic record. The criminal revision is dismissed with no order as to costs. February 23, 2011 ( RITU BAHRI ) Vijay Asija JUDGE