IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Revision No.1796 of 2009 Amit Kumar @ Chunnu son of Narayan Prasad Gupta, R/o village Konch Bazar, P.S. Konch, Dist. Gaya …… Petitioner Versus State Of Bihar ……..O.P. ------------------- 3 12.12.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the informant. Let it be kept on record. The accused petitioner has preferred this revision application under section 53 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 against the order dated 12.5.2009 passed by the learned Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Gaya in Cri. Appeal No. 3 of 2007 by which the order dated 16.12.2006 passed by the learned Juvenile Justice Board in Tekari P.S. Case No. 89 of 2006, Tr. No. 710 (G) of 2006 has been set aside and the appeal has been allowed. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is an accused in Tekari P.S. Case no. 89 of 2006 under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act. The occurrence has taken place on 5.6.2006. The plea of juvenility was taken up by the petitioner before the Juvenile Justice Board, who vide its order dated 16.12.2006 declard the petitioner as a juvenile below the age of 18 years. During that inquiry the transfer certificate issued by the school was found to be not genuine 2 and as such the Juvenile Justice Board called for a report from the Medical Board. The Medical Board has examined the petitioner and his age was shown between 17 to 18 years on 27.6.2006. According to the finding of the Medical Board on the date of occurrence the petitioner was between 17 to 18 years, as such the learned Juvenile Justice Board declared the petitioner a Juvenile vide its order dated 16.12.2006. The informant preferred Cri. Appeal No.3 of 2007 against the aforesaid order dated 16.12.2006 which has been set aside by the learned appellate court on the ground that the petitioner was also engaged in a motorcycle snatching case while he was in remand home and under that circumstances the learned appellate court has taken a view that the petitioner Amit Kumar Gupta was fully matured on the relevant date of occurrence i.e. 27.6.2006. He has further submitted that the date of occurrence is 5.6.2006 and not of 27.6.2006 which is the date of report of Medical Board. He has further submitted that the learned trial court has wrongly set aside the order passed by the learned Juvenile Justice Board which is not in accordance with law. Learned counsel for the State assisted by the learned counsel for the informant could not controvert the contention of the petitioner. In Rule 12 (3) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and 3 Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, the guidelines have been given to the court or the Board as the case may be for the consideration of the documents for considering the juvenility matter of a person. It is better to quote Rule 12 (3) : “12. Procedure to be followed in determining of age- (3) In every case concerning a child or juvenile in conflict with law, the age determination inquiry shall be conducted by the Court or the Board or, as the case may be, the Committee by seeking evidence by obtaining- (a) (i) the matriculation or equivalent certificates, if available; and in the absence whereof; (ii) the date of birth certificate from the school (other than a play school) first attended; and in the absence whereof; (iii) the birth certificate given by a corporation or a municipal authority or a panchayat; (b) and only in the absence of either (i), (ii) or (iii) of clause (a) above, the medical opinion will be sought from a duly constituted Medical Board, which will declare the age of the juvenile or child. In case exact assessment of the age cannot be done, the Court or the Board or, as the case may be, the Committee, for the reasons to be recorded by them, may, if considered necessary, give benefit to be child or juvenile by considering his/her age on lower side within the margin of one year, and, while passing orders in such case shall, after taking into consideration such evidence as may be available, or the medical opinion, as the case may be, record a finding in respect of his age and either of the evidence specified in any of the clauses (a) (i), (ii), (iii) or in the absence whereof, clause (b) shall be the conclusive proof of the age as regards such child or the juvenile in conflict with law.” 4 It is admitted fact that the transfer certificate produced by the petitioner has not been found genuine, as such it will be presumed that there was no certificate and any other certification as referred above has not been produced by the petitioner before the Juvenile Justice Board, therefore, the Juvenile Justice Board has rightly called for a report from the Medical Board for determination of the age of the petitioner. The age of the petitioner has been estimated by the Medical Board 17 to 18 years on the date of its report i.e. 27.6.2006 and accordingly, the Juvenile Justice Board declared the petitioner a Juvenile vide its order dated 16.12.2006. It appears from the appellate court judgment that the learned appellate court has considered the report of the Medical Board regarding the age of the petitioner, but he has gone beyond the scope of the material for the consideration/determination of age of a juvenile as mentioned in Rule 12(3) of the Rules and has misdirected and he has taken a wrong view by saying that the appellate court was of the view that the petitioner was matured on the date of occurrence and his age was above 18 years. There is no cogent reason for the determination of the age of the petitioner. 5 Considering the facts and circumstances stated above, in my opinion, the impugned order dated 12.5.2009 passed by the learned appellate court is not fit to be sustained and it is set aside. The order passed by the learned Juvenile Justice Board is restored. In the result the revision application is allowed. M.Rahman (Amaresh Kumar Lal, J)