IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.431 of 2010 BINAY KUMAR S/o Shankar Mahto, R/o Village-Sangram Fandah, P.S.-Riga, District - Sitamarhi Versus The STATE OF BIHAR ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Ganesh Pd. Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Virendra Kumar. For the State : Mr. Uday Chand Prasad., A.P.P. --- 3/ 05.04.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. Claim made by the petitioner about his being juvenile on the date of occurrence is disowned by the Trial Court i.e. A.D.J. (F.T.C.-III), Sitamarhi. Here the parties were aware of the fact that what is seriatim of acceptance of documents concerning date of birth that first one is the matriculation certificate or equivalent certificate, if available. In absence thereof, the second is the date of birth certificate from the school (other than play school), first contended. In absence thereof, the date of birth certificate given by a Corporation or a Municipal Authority or a Panchayat and only in absence of either of the three, the Medical opinion will be sought from a duly constituted Medical Board. Both the prosecution through informant and the accused assisted by his father have produced certificates showing it from the first attended school of the juvenile but a peculiar situation appeared that 2 different certificates for the same period from different school showing first attended are filed having different date of birth. Certainly, one of the documents is forged one. Before making any observation, it is pertinent to mention here that the document prosecution has furnished is certificate of the Government Secondary School, Riga showing date of birth 10.02.1986, while on behalf of the petitioner certificate from Government Middle School, Kishanpur Bathnaha, Sitamarhi showing date of birth 29.10.1993 and the Government Primary School, Beli showing date of birth as on 09.10.1993 are filed. Prosecution document is accepted in this case offence committed allegedly by the petitioner is not so serious as attempt of the parties as they dare to file different school certificates having different date of birth goes to show that how corruption is deep rooted. There is certainly involvement of school teachers, headmaster, principal and parties. Area of inquiry is limited for the same. There is need of taking opinion of the age of the script which is possible in forensic laboratory. Medical opinion also shows the nearest possible age if tallies with the certificate. So, for the purpose of inquiry, accepting of any of them is dangerous rather not acceptable. Therefore, opinion of 3 the Medical Board constituted by C.M.O having special care of seriousness of the case is required. At the same time, Registrar/Judge-In-charge, Sitamarhi may be directed by the Trial Court to file an F.I.R. making accused, Headmaster of all the three schools. Petitioner, his father and informant for fixing liability as which of the document is really forged one. In the circumstances, the revision petition is allowed. The order dated 01.02.2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.3 in S.Tr. No. 100 of 2009 is set aside and at the same time, the matter is remitted to decide the same afresh complying the direction, as discussed above, including filing of the F.I.R. shail (Mandhata Singh, J.)