IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.29 of 2009 NAGENDRA SINGH Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- For the petitioner: Mr. Shekhar Singh, Advocate. For the opposite party no.2: Mr. Sanjay Prasad Bhakta, Advocate. For the State: Mrs. Indu Bala Pandey, APP. 5 20.07.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the opposite party no.2. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 03.12.2008 passed by the learned trial court (Fast Track Court No. III) Gopalganj in Sessions Trial No. 62 of 2008, whereby the application filed on behalf of the petitioner to declare him as juvenile has been considered and rejected. Petitioner is facing prosecution under Section 364A/34 of the Penal Code. He is named in the F.I.R. along with 02 others. The date of occurrence, as per the F.I.R. is 28.08.2007. It appears the petitioner made an application on 18.07.2008 for declaring him Juvenile. The claim was based on school transfer certificate (Ext.1) which mentioned his death of birth as 15.01.1995. In order to prove his claim, petitioner got examined two witnesses. A.W.1 Kashi Bhagat (father of the petitioner) and A.W.2 Radha Krishna Prasad, who is headmaster of the school. The prosecution disputed the claim of juvenility made by the petitioner. They also examined witnesses in the shape of Sri Baleshwar Tiwari who is/was head master of Govt. middle school Kushan. 2 The learned court below critically evaluated the evidence (oral and documentary) brought on record by the parties. Considering the entire evidence of A.W.1 it was found that he is not reliable and trustworthy. Admittedly, the date of birth as claimed by the petitioner as also reflected from Ext.1 is based on transfer certificate issued from Govt. Middle School Kushan where he claimed to have studied up to middle level.O.P.W.No.1 Baleshwar Tiwary has categorically denied about the admission of the petitioner in the Govt. Middle School Kushan. Having critically analyzed the evidence on record, the court below has found and held that Ext.1 (School Leaving Certificate) is forged and fabricated paper brought in existence to obtain a favourable order from the court. This court finds no infirmity in the evaluation of the evidence brought on record and thereby recording the findings as noted above. Learned counsel for the O.P.No.2 draws attention of the court to that part of the order where it has been found that initially when the petitioner was produced before the Learned C.J.M. his age was assessed at 21 years. Learned counsel for the petitioner then submits that if the School Leaving Certificate is not found trustworthy, the court has no option but to refer the matter to the Medical Board. To this learned counsel for the opposite party submits that the petitioner produced and relied upon the School Leaving Certificate/Admission Register which 3 was considered in the light of evidence brought on record and the learned court below has found and held that the same was forged and fabricated. Having reflected over the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and after going through the materials available on record, this court finds force in the submission of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no.2. The petitioner made a claim based on Ext.1 and adduced evidence in support thereof which was not found a bonafide document. On the contrary, the findings are that the same was forged and fabricated one. The petitioner, thus, cannot now be allowed to urge that the matter should now go to the Medical Board. The application is devoid of merit. Dismissed. Sym/ (Kishore K. Mandal, J.)