IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Revision No.145 of 2011 ================================================== Charanjivi Kumar @ Chiranjeev Kumar, son of Devendra Kumar @ Singh, resident of village-Kamaldah, P.S.-Bashreha, District- Sitamarhi. .... .... Petitioner Versus The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party ================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner : Mr. Surendra Kishore Thakur, Adv. For the State : Mrs. I.B. Pandey, Addl.P.P. ================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMARESH KUMAR LAL ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMARESH KUMAR LAL) Amaresh Kumar Lal, J. The accused petitioner has preferred this revision application under Section 53 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) against the order dated 13.12.2010 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sitamarhi in Cr. Appeal No.103/2010 by which the order dated 9.10.2010 passed by the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Sitamarhi in Trial No.695/2010 arising out of Sitamarhi P.S. Case No.277/2010 under Section 25 (1-b) a/26 (iii)/25 of the Arms Act has been confirmed and the appeal has been dismissed. Patna High Court CR. REV. No.145 of 2011 dt.09-12-2011 2 The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has passed C.B.S.E. Examination in the year 2008 and his date of birth according to the certificate is 1.10.1993. Earlier, the date of birth recorded in the D.A.V. Public School, Sitamarhi in class III was wrongly mentioned as 25.12.1990. Later on, the date was corrected. The correct date of birth of the petitioner was entered into the certificate granted by the CBSE Board. The certificate granted by the CBSE Board is annexed as Annexuree-1 to this petition. This certificate has not been relied upon by the learned Juvenile Justice Board and the learned Juvenile Justice Board has called for a report from the Medical Board. According to which, the age of the petitioner has been estimated around 20 years on 29.07.2010. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in Rule 12 (3) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and 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) : Patna High Court CR. REV. No.145 of 2011 dt.09-12-2011 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.” Patna High Court CR. REV. No.145 of 2011 dt.09-12-2011 4 In this case, the petitioner has produced the matriculation certificate granted by the CBSE, as such, the learned Juvenile Justice Board or the appellate court was not required to see other documents and the medical report was not required. The bonafide of the certificate granted by the CBSE has not been doubted. As such, in view of the above procedure, the learned Juvenile Justice Board should not have considered and relied upon the medical certificate. The learned counsel for the State could not controvert the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. After hearing the learned counsel for both the parties and on perusal of the record, it appear that under Rule 12 of the Rules, 2007, procedure has been laid down for determination of age of a juvenile by the Juvenile Justice Board or the Committee or a Board as the case may be. Rule is mandatory for the purpose of determination of the age of a child or a juvenile. It further appears from the order passed by the Patna High Court CR. REV. No.145 of 2011 dt.09-12-2011 5 learned Juvenile Justice Board as well as the appellate court that the rules have not been followed properly, as such, the impugned order dated 13.12.2010 passed by the learned appellate court and the order dated 9.10.2010 passed by the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Sitamarhi in Trial Nos.694/2010, 695/2010, 696/2010 passed in Cr. Appeal Nos. 102/2010, 103/2010, 104/2010 (Chiranjeev Kumar Vs. State of Bihar) are set aside. The juvenility matter is remanded to the learned Juvenile Justice Board for re-consideration of the juvenility matter of the petitioner in view of the provisions contained in Rule 12 (3) of the Rules, 2007 and proceed with the case in accordance with law. In the result, this application is allowed. Patna High Court, Patna Dated, the 9th of December, 2011 A.F.R./V.K. Pandey ( Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)