IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.975 of 2011 Rakesh Singh, son of Chaturbhuj Singh, resident of village-Bhoraha, P.S.-Belsand, District- Sitamarhi. Versus The State Of Bihar . ----------- 2. 17.08.2011 The accused petitioner has preferred this revision application under Section 53 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 against the order dated 18.04.2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.VII, Sitamarhi by which the order dated 15.11.2010 passed by the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Sitamarhi in Trial No.643/10 has been affirmed and thereby the claim of the petitioner to be a juvenile has been rejected. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on 25.10.2009, the alleged date of occurrence, the petitioner was a juvenile as his date of birth recorded in the admission register of class VIII is 4.07.1994. This admission register has been marked as Exhibit-1. He also submits that according to the medical board report, the age of the petitioner is about 19 years as on 1.07,2010, the date 2 of examination of the petitioner by the medical board and thereby the age of the petitioner comes to 17 years on the date of occurrence. But, the learned Juvenile Justice Board has not considered this fact and has relied upon the school admission register of the petitioner first attended in his village, which has been marked as Exhibit-2. According to which, the date of birth of the petitioner is 5.04.1991 in the admission register of class-I on 1.05.1997. The medical report has been called for by the Juvenile Justice Board, as such, the medical report should have been relied upon by the Juvenile Justice Board as well as by the appellate court. The learned counsel for the State has submitted that there is Rule for the consideration of the age of a person claiming to be a juvenile and the report of the medical board can only be considered, if the school certificate and the date of birth recorded in the school first attended are not available. The impugned order has been passed in accordance with law and no interference by this Court is required. After hearing the learned counsels for both the parties and on perusal of the materials on the record, it 3 appears that the matter of juvenility has been considered by the Juvenile Justice Board as well as by the appellate court. In pursuance to the provisions contained in Sub- section (I) of Section 68 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (56 of 2000) the Central Government has framed the rules called Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 and it has come into force w.e.f.26.10.2007 published in the Gazette of India. According to the Rule 12 (3), guidelines have been given to the Court or the Board, as the case may be, for determination of age concerning a child or a juvenile. According to the Rule 12(3) (a), the Court or Board or the Committee has to consider the evidence by obtaining (i) 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 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 this case, the petitioner has 4 submitted the admission register of class-VIII showing that his date of birth is 4.07.1994 (Exhibit-1). On the other hand, the informant has produced the school admission register of the petitioner of class I, first attended school of Utkramit Madhya Vidhalaya (Exhibit-2) showing the date of birth of the petitioner as 5.04.1991 in the admission register of class I on 1.05.1997. The date of birth shown in class I, the first attended school has rightly been considered by both the court below and has found that the petitioner is not a juvenile and he has been declared a major above the age of 18 years as the date of occurrence is 25.10.2009. Considering the facts and circumstances stated above, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. In the result, this petition is dismissed. V.K. Pandey ( Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)