IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL (1) Criminal Revision No.153 of 2005 Mohit Kakkar ………. Revisionist Versus State of Uttaranchal & another ..…. Respondents Sri A.S. Gill, Advocate for the revisionist Sri G.S. Sandhu, G.A. for the State/respondent no.1 Sri V.D. Bisen, Advocate for respondent no.2 (2) Criminal Revision No.165 of 2005 Vivek Kakkar @ Mohit ………. Revisionist Versus State of Uttaranchal & another ..…. Respondents Sri Navneet Kaushik, Advocate for the revisionist Sri G.S. Sandhu, G.A. for the State/respondent no.1 Sri V.D. Bisen, Advocate for respondent no.2 Dated: August 2, 2011 Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. This judgment and order will dispose of both the criminal revisions, titled above, as matter in controversy in both the revisions is the same and both have been directed against the judgment and order of the learned Sessions Judge, U.S. Nagar dated 27.7.2005 passed in Appeal No.8/2005, Krishan Chandra Agarwal Vs. Mohit Kakkar @ Mani and Appeal No.9 of 2005, Krishan Chandra Agarwal Vs. Vivek Kakkar @ Mohit respectively. The background facts are that against Sri Mohit Kakkar @ Mani and Sri Vivek Kakkar @ Mohit, a case crime no.43 of 2004 was registered under Sections 302/394/411/201 IPC pertaining to P.S. Bazpur, District U.S. Nagar, wherein both 2 the accused, named above, were produced before the C.J.M., U.S. Nagar, who upon hearing the bail application, passed an order dated 4.6.2004. The learned C.J.M., pondering over the seriousness of the facts of the crime, although rejected the bail applications of both the accused persons but made an observation in his order that on the basis of certificate issued by Municipal Board, Bilaspur, the date of birth of accused Mohit Kakkar is 19.3.1986 making it 17 years 11 months and 3 days on the date of occurrence, i.e. 21/22.2.2004. In the next matter, learned C.J.M. observed that date of birth of Sri Vivek Kakkar was 6.10.1986 on the basis of transfer certificate issued by the Basic Educational Institute Saraswati Shishu Mandir besides on the basis of copy of Parivar Register, nay the affidavit. So, this way the age of accused Vivek Kakkar on the date of occurrence was 17 years 4 months and 16 days. Thus, both the accused were juvenile on the date of occurrence as per the provisions of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, being below 18 years of age. The said orders of learned C.J.M. dated 4.6.2004 were challenged before the Sessions Judge who passed the impugned order dated 27.7.2005 turning the order of learned C.J.M. down, holding the date of birth of accused Vivek Kakkar as 23.2.1984 on the basis of Transfer Certificate of High School Examination as well as cross-sheet (replica of marksheet) received in the school from the Provincial Board of Examination. Similarly, the date of birth of Shri Mohit Kakkar, as the learned Sessions Judge held vide his impugned judgment, was 20.6.1984 on the basis of high school entrance examination papers pertaining to the year 2000 issued by Janta Inter College, Rudrapur. It has been argued on behalf of both the accused persons that without holding the enquiry, the learned Sessions Judge could not have turned down the observation of C.J.M. regarding the age. 3 Citing all the relevant provisions of the Act and the Rules made therein, it was contended that under Rule 14 of the Act, an enquiry regarding the Juvenile made by the Board shall be completed within a period of four months from the date of its commencement. It was also contended that at the relevant time in U.S. Nagar, there was no Board constituted, so the powers of the Board were exercised by learned C.J.M. and exercising those powers, he has adverted his opinion in the order dated 4.6.2004. Even, accepting the argument for a moment, it can very well be said that the learned C.J.M. did not conduct any enquiry. Simply on the disposal of the bail application, he made the observation of three lines noticing the date of birth of the accused persons on the papers which were produced before him, claiming the bail of them on the basis of they being minor. So, this was not the result or the outcome of the enquiry conducted by the C.J.M., much less than the enquiry conducted by the Board. It is pertinent to mention that the powers of the Sessions Judge u/s 6(2) of the Act as well as u/s 7A of the Act, wherein the Court of Sessions can exercise all those powers which are conferred on the Board by or under this Act regarding holding an enquiry u/s 7A or 49(2) of the Act. It has been argued on behalf of the private respondent as well as learned G.A. that perusal of the order impugned divulges that enquiry has been conducted by Sessions Judge to determine the age of the respective accused. In appeal no.8 of 2005 preferred against Sri Mohit Kakkar, the learned Sessions Judge herself has observed that in order to determine the matter legally, to conduct an enquiry is inevitable and in order to conduct that enquiry, learned Sessions Judge has summoned the Principal of Janta Inter College, Rudrapur and have categorically analyzed the entire evidence produced by either of the parties on record. No doubt, learned Sessions Judge did not give an opportunity to the parents of the 4 accused persons to be examined in chief or cross-examination but in the opinion of this Court, that was not necessary because had this opportunity been extended to both the parties, then it would have been converted into a duel in the form of mini sessions trial, just to determine the age. All the more, it was not necessary because when the documentary evidence was available, then Sessions Judge had to assess that which of the documentary evidence was more believable. Besides, the age, as mentioned in the highschool certificate, is accepted as a true and correct age for all respects regarding any candidate and for all purposes. That cannot be rebutted on any basic school certificate or Parivar register or medical examination. So, in view of the above, the learned Sessions Judge has conducted a detailed and elaborate enquiry in the form which was necessary and thus, has determined the age of the accused persons. This court does not feel any need to interfere with the order of the learned Sessions Judge, which is liable to be uphold. Both the revisions are liable to be dismissed and are dismissed accordingly. (Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.) 02.08.2011 Rajeev Dang