IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1207 of 2010 RAMAN KUMAR @ CHINTU SINGH @ CHINTU KUMAR SON OF LATE DILIP SINGH R/O- VILLAGE PUBARITOLA MAJHAUL, P.S.- CHERIA BARIARPUR IN THE DISTRICT OF BEGUSARAI. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR . 2. THE PRINCIPAL, JAWAHAR NAVODAYA VIDYALAYA, SEIKHPURA, DISTRICT- SEIKHPURA, BIHAR. For the petitioner : Mr. Akhileshwar Pd. Singh, Sr. Advocate For the State : Mr. R.C. Singh, APP For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. J.P. Karn, Advocate. ----------- 3 12.01.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the State and the O.P. No. 2. Petitioner is an accused of Sessions Trial No. 289(A) of 2009 (arising out of Begusarai Town P.S. case no. 413 of 2008) instituted under Sections 363, 365, 120B/34 and 364A of the Indian Penal Code. The date of occurrence of the said case is 20.11.2008. Petitioner raised an issue before the learned Trial Court (Addl. Sessions Judge-VI, Begusarai) that he was juvenile in terms of the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 on the date of occurrence and as such his trial may be separated and he be tried in accordance with the provisions contained therein. Such issue having been raised, the Trial Court separated his case for inquiry in terms of Section 7A of the Act. Petitioner, in order to claim juvenility on the date of occurrence, produced the admit card issued by the Central Board of Secondary Education, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Board) wherein his date of birth is recorded as 11.12.1992 (Annexure-2). He also produced the marks-sheet 2 issued by the Board which also contain his date of birth as 11.12.1992 (Annexure-3). The matriculation certificate issued by the Board was, however, not produced by the petitioner in support of the claim that his date of birth was 11.12.1992. The petitioner also produced orders dated 13.10.2009 passed in Begusarai Town P.S. case no. 428 of 2008 (Annexure-4) and order dated 5.5.2010 passed in Nawkothi P.S. case no. 37/2009 (Annexure-5) in order to show that in the aforesaid cases, the petitioner has already been found and declared juvenile in conflict with law after accepting his date of birth as 11.12.1992. Learned Trial Court by reason of the impugned order 5.7.2010 has rejected his claim relying on oral evidence of the petitioner and his grandfather. It is found therefrom that petitioner in course of deposition admitted that in the year 2004, his father had died and at that time, he was aged about 14 years. Taking clue from the aforesaid evidence as also the fact that no matriculation certificate was produced on behalf of the petitioner, learned Trial Court directed for constitution of Medical Board. The Medical Board after examining the petitioner submitted its report on 26.2.2010 wherein his date of birth was assessed between 21/22 years. Learned Trial Court relying on the aforesaid assessment made by the Medical Board as also the statement of the petitioner made in course of his deposition that at the time of death of his father (2004), he was close to 14 years of age, disallowed the claim. Petitioner is aggrieved by the aforesaid 3 order. This Court permitted the petitioner to implead respondent No. 2 as party respondents whereafter notices were issued to the said respondent. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 2 submits that the documents placed at Annexures-2 and 3 are valid documents which were received by the school and made over to the petitioner. So far matriculation certificate is concerned, a stand has been taken by respondent No. 2 that the same has already been obtained by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while assailing the order, submits that in terms of the provisions contained in Rule 12(3) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, while making such inquiry, the Court or the Committee holding inquiry has to seek evidence by obtaining first the matriculation certificate or equivalent certificate. In absence whereof, the date of birth certificate from the school other than the play school first attended has to be insisted upon for considering the claim in absence whereof the birth certificate given by a Corporation or a Municipal authority or a Panchayat has to be considered. In absence of non-filing/production of these documents, the Court shall be justified in constituting Medical Board seeking opinion of the Board with regard to the age of the petitioner. He relies on two judgments of this Court since reported in 2008 (2) P.L.J.R. 800 and 2009 (3) P.L.J.R. 123 (SC). This Court finds from the documents placed on record 4 that the petitioner had taken the said examination conducted by the Board in the year 2007 itself. It is also seen that in different case, the Juvenile Board has already declared him a juvenile in conflict with law. In view of the materials on record, the petitioner must be in possession of the matriculation certificate issued by the said Board. Considering the spirit of the Act read in the light of provisions contained under Rule 12(3) of the Rules framed thereunder, this Court is satisfied that the matter requires fresh consideration by the learned Trial Court. Petitioner should be given an opportunity to produce the matriculation certificate in support of his claim. If such a certificate is produced, the Court below shall consider the same in the light of attending facts of the case and dispose of the application in accordance with law. Accordingly, this Court is inclined to interfere with the order dated 5.7.2009 which is quashed and set aside. The matter goes on remand to the Trial Court (Addl. Sessions Judge VI, Begusarai) for passing fresh order in accordance with law having regard to the observations made hereinabove. This Court expects that inquiry into his claim should be completed within three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. pkj ( Kishore K. Mandal, J. )