IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.456 of 2010 SHANKAR JEE @ CHHATISH SINGH @ BIGRA SINGH @ Satish Singh, S/o late Hridya Nand Singh, R/o Vill. Chaugai, P.S. Murar, Dist. Buxar. Versus The STATE OF BIHAR ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Jitendra Pd. Singh, Mr. R.K. Singh, Mr. Abhishek, Mr. P.K. Dipal. For the State : Mr. Sanjay Kumar. ------ 2/ 08.04.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. Petitioner is, if major, an accused for the offence under Section 302/34 of the I.P.C. in Murar P.S. Case No. 36 of 2007. A claim was made on his behalf in Trial Court about his being juvenile. Enquiry was also conducted. Several documents including horoscope, Admit Card, Transfer Certificate of the School (verified by original register) in which he has been shown failed in matriculation examination are filed in the case. Oral witnesses are there also on the point of age including a report from duly constituted Medical Board. Opinion of the Medical Board is about being petitioner 21 years on 03.02.2010 showing more than 18 years on the date of occurrence i.e. 29.09.2007. A single legal point is raised and pressed that opinion of the Medical Board can be obtained in absence of matriculation or equivalent certificate, certificate from the first attended School (other than play school) and certificate from Municipal Corporation or Municipal Authority or Panchayat. Transfer Certificate filed on 2 behalf of the petitioner followed by admit card concerning appearance in matriculation examination of the year 2005 are said matriculation or equivalent certificate. No doubt, both the documents are concerning petitioner’s appearance in matriculation examination in the year 2005 but he failed. If he would have succeeded, there was no doubt to accept the same as matriculation certificate. Whether the situation differs, in case, petitioner could not succeed in the examination, both the lawyers representing the State as well as the petitioner are at the agreement that document can be taken as matriculation or equivalent certificate. I also agree with the opinion made by the learned counsels for the petitioner and State and once, it is observed that matriculation certificate is on record, Court was not empowered to call for report from Medical Board which has been done in the case. So, the order passed basing the opinion made by the Medical Board is not liable to be sustained. Accordingly, the revision petitioner is allowed and the order dated 19.02.2010 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-IV, Buxar in Sessions Trial No. 48 of 2008 is set aside. The Revision Application is sent back for deciding the matter afresh accepting petitioner’s certificate as matriculation or equivalent certificate. Shail/A.F.R. (Mandhata Singh, J.)