IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1519 of 2008 CHANDNI KUMARI, d/o Srichedi Das. Resident of vill.- Babhangama, P.S.-Sarahat and District at Banka----------- ------------------------------------------------------Petitioner. Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. Mohan Das, s/o Sri Shivnarayan Das, resident of vill.- Babhangama, P.S.-Barahat and Distt.-Banka---------------- -------------------------------------------------Opp. Parties. ----------- 2. 8.12.2009 Heard the parties. This revision application is directed against the order dated 10.6.2008 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-IV, Banka, in Sessions Trial no.532 of 2007 arising out of Banka (Barahat) P.S. case no.35 of 2007 in G.R. no.143 of 2007. Accused of the case was facing trial for the offence under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code committed upon the petitioner and the case was pending in the court of F.T.C-IV, Banka, in Sessions Trial no.532 of 2007. In course of trial a claim was made on behalf of opposite party no.2 about his being juvenile. A certificate of class-VIII is the only document filed in the case and another evidence is report of the Medical Board to which opposite party no.2 was referred for assessment of his age. Report is received by the court through letter no.1356 on 3.6.2008 in which opposite party no.2 has been shown above 17 years. According to the learned counsel for the 2 petitioner, it was not an enquiry. Certificate from a school should not be accepted as it was not from the school first attended by opposite party no.2. In my view, procedure or manner is given for enquiry and at present Juvenile Justice ( Care and Protection of Children) Rules 2007 in Rule 12 provides for report of the Medical Board in absence of matriculation certificate, certificate from the first attended school or birth certificate from Municipal Corporation or Panchayat which are absent in the case. So, rightly report of the Medical Board has been taken into consideration finding certificate not sufficient for concluding the real age. After a year of the incident report of the Medical Board has come about petitioner being above 17 years mean to say in between 17 to 18 years. As such, the trial court has rightly observed that on the date of incident petitioner was below 17 years, a juvenile. So the order passed by F.T.C.-IV, Banka, suffers from no infirmity needing any interference. In the result, the revision is rejected and the order passed by the F.T.C.-IV, Banka, is affirmed. Sudip (Mandhata Singh, J.)