IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.859/2010 Sabbir Mansuri Vs. State of Rajasthan Date of Order: 16.8.2010 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Mr. Manish Chaudhary for the petitioner Mr. Piyush Kumar, Public Prosecutor ****** Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, and gone through the order passed by the Court below. This revision petition has been preferred against the order dated 1st June, 2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shahpura, district Jaipur, whereby the application of the petitioner for treating him to be a juvenile under the provisions of Section 2(a) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 has been rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner was not held to be juvenile only because his father and mother in their statements have stated his age to be about 18 years and that the Secondary School certificate produced by the petitioner, showing his date of birth as 5th July, 1991 was completely disbelieved. Learned counsel submitted that if at all there was any doubt, the learned Court below ought to have got the matter inquired into in accordance with the provisions of Rule 12 of the Rules of 2007 framed under the Act. Petitioner has annexed the certificate issued by the Government School in which he was admitted in Class 1st and continued to study in that school till he passed 8th Standard and thereafter, on the basis of transfer certificate he was admitted in another school from where he passed out his secondary school examination. It is argued that the school certificate cannot be disbelieved on the basis of oral evidence and to support this argument, learned counsel has relied upon Umesh Chandra Vs. State of Rajasthan (AIR 1982 SC 1057), Ram Suresh Singh Vs. Prabhat Singh @ Chhotu Singh and another (2010(1) RLW 63 and Surendra Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan (2008(4)WLC 443). Having regard to the impugned orders and considering the fact that there is no finding as to the genuineness of the Secondary School certificate and further that no inquiry was made by the learned Court below before discarding the Secondary School Certificate, I find that the petitioner has made out a case worth remand and the impugned order deserves to be set aside. Thus, following the ratio of the judgments cited above, the order impugned in this revision petition stands set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Court below with the direction to conduct inquiry in the matter in accordance with Rule 12 of the Rules of 2007 so as to ascertain the actual date of the birth of the petitioner and also to verify the genuineness of the Secondary School Certificate and then to pass appropriate order in accordance with law, without being influenced by the earlier order, preferably before conclusion of trial. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. Thanvi