IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Revision No. 195 of 2008 Mobeen Ahmad S/o Sri Babu R/o Mohalla Thana Sabik P.S. Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar. ...…………. Revisionist Versus State of Uttarakhand ...…………. Respondent Mr. Kuldeep Rawal, Advocate holding brief of Mr. H.S. Rawal, Advocate for the revisionist. Mr. Prabhakar Joshi, Brief Holder for the respondent State. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. This revision is filed under Section 53 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, challenging the order dated 05.09.2008, passed by the Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar, in Criminal Appeal No. 44 of 2008, whereby the said appeal has been dismissed upholding the order dated 05.08.2008, passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, refusing to hold the revisionist as juvenile. 2) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the papers on record. 3) Brief facts of the case are that the present revisionist Mobeen Ahmad S/o Babu, moved an 2 application before the Juvenile Justice Board, Udham Singh Nagar, to declare himself juvenile in respect of proceedings initiated on Crime No. 324 of 2008, relating to offences punishable under Section 394, 302 and 411 of I.P.C. The case of the revisionist is that his date of birth is 20th of August 1991, and as such, on the date of incident i.e. 22.06.2008, he was aged 16 years and 11 months (i.e. less than 18 years). The Juvenile Justice Board and the appellate court have relied on the medical report which suggests age of the revisionist to be 19 years on the date of incident. 4) Learned counsel for the revisionist drew attention of this Court to the certificate issued by the Registrar, Birth / Death, District Health Officer, Nagar Palika, Kashipur, in which the date of birth of the revisionist Mooben Ahmad S/o Babu is shown as 20th of August 1991. The said document is annexed as Annexure S.A. 1 to the supplementary affidavit filed with this revision. On close scrutiny of said document, this Court finds that the date of birth has been got registered by the revisionist and his parents only on 18th of September 2008 i.e. two months after incident of the crime. The registration has been got done after the Juvenile Justice Board has refused to declare the revisionist as juvenile, and the appeal was also dismissed by the Sessions Judge, on 05.09.2008. Such birth certificate on the face of it appears to be a concocted one in connivance with the Municipal authorities. As far as the school leaving 3 certificate issued by Shamshul Ulum Primary School filed before the Juvenile Justice Board is concerned, that too appears to have been obtained on 12.07.2008 i.e. after the incident of crime in question. I agree with the learned Sessions Judge that it is only the genuine matriculation certificate or the school leaving certificate which can be given preference over the medical opinion. Learned Sessions Judge has clearly observed in his order that the Principal who issued the school leaving certificate was examined as C.W. 1 Mohd. Arshad Ansari. The relevant para of the impugned order is being reproduced below: “Lkh0Mcyw0 1 ekSgEen vjln valkjh iz/kkukpk;Z }kjk viuh ftjg esa ;g Li"V fd;k x;k gS fd mls bl ckr dh tkudkjh ugha gS fd Nk= dh tUe frfFk fdl vk/kkj ij vafdr dh gS] mlds fo|ky; es izos’k ds le; tUe izek.k i= dh vko’;drk ugh gS] dsoy ekrk firk }kjk mldh vk;q crk;k tkuk gh dkQh gS vksj mlds dk;Zdky esa Nk= bl fo|ky; esa ugh i<rk FkkA blls ;g lkQ gks tkrk gS fd tUe frfFk Ldwy esa vafdr djkrs le; tUe fRkfFk dh iqf"V ds ckcr dksbZ nLrkost fo|ky; esa izLrqr gh ugh fd;k x;kA vr% izLrqr LFkkukarj.k izek.k i= dks fo’oluh; djkj ugh fn;k tk ldRkkA” It is also observed by the learned Sessions Judge that it was not shown on behalf of the present revisionist that the record on the basis of which the school leaving certificate was issued, is maintained as per the provisions of Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. 4 5) Having considered submissions of learned counsel for the parties and after going through the papers on record, this Court is of the view that the order passed by the Sessions Judge affirming the order of the Juvenile Justice Board, suffers from no illegality. 6) Accordingly, the revision is dismissed. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt. March 10, 2010. H. Negi 5