IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.228 of 2011 PRAFUL KUMAR @ PRAFUL PRASAD @ LALI Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. ----------- 03. 16.05.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 15th of January 2011, whereby the court below directed the Civil Surgeon , Nalanda for constituting a Medical Board to assess the age of the petitioner since petitioner claims to be of 14 years on the alleged date of commission of the offence whereas the complainant claims that the age of petitioner was 22 years at the time of occurrence as indicated by the petitioner in his affidavit. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the provisions of Section 49 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, the Competent Authority under the Act should take the evidence in order to assess the age of the claimant and not by affidavit. Learned counsel for the State in view of the conflicting factual dispute submits that the order directing the Civil Surgeon, Nalanda for constituting the Medical Board to assess the age of the petitioner cannot be faulted. 2 Considering the submissions of the parties and on perusal of the impugned order, I find that the court below has taken into consideration the rival claims of the parties with respect to the age and as such, the court below was justified in directing the Civil Surgeon , Nalanda for constituting a Medical Board in order to assess the age of the petitioner. In view of the above, I do not find any error in the order. The writ application is accordingly dismissed. Jagdish/ ( Shailesh Kumar Sinha, J.)