IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1128 of 2009 Shankar Yadav, son of Late Kadri Yadav, resident of village-Kamaldih, P.S.- Banka, District- Banka. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Rajesh Yadav, son of Mahendra Yadav, resident of village-Chaknadih, P.S.-Banka, District- Banka. ----------- 3. 1.08.2011 The informant-petitioner has preferred this revision application against the order dated 28.04.2009 passed by the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Banka in G.R. No.417/08 arising out of Banka P.S. Case No.131/08 under Section 302/34 of the I.P.C. by which the accused- opposite party no.2 has been declared to be a juvenile. The prosecution case, in brief, is that Vikash Yadav, son of the petitioner alongwith other persons had gone to attend the call of nature on 21.03.2008 at about 7.30 P.M. In the meantime, the accused Rajesh Yadav (opposite party no.2) and Rajiv Kumar arrived and both the accused persons fired shots at the son of the petitioner and he was taken to the hospital and he succumbed to his injury during treatment. On the basis of fardbeyan, the aforesaid case was instituted against the accused including the opposite party no.2. A petition was filed on behalf of the opposite 2 party no.2 for the declaration of juvenile and the learned Juvenile Justice Board has declared him to be a juvenile. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the opposite party no.2 is not a juvenile. He has produced a forged document. He has been also an accused in Banka P.S. Case No.341/06 under Sections 302, 120 B/34 of the I.P.C. and Sections 3 & 4 of the Explosive Substance Act in which also the opposite party no.2 surrendered before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Banka on 8.12.2006 where his age was assessed as 20 years. A petition for juvenility was filed on 21.07.2007 before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, which was rejected by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. Thereafter no appeal was filed by the opposite party no.2. In that case the opposite party no.2 was examined under Section 313 and he disclosed his age as 25 years. He has further submitted that no opportunity was given to the petitioner for the consideration of the age of the opposite party no.2 by the learned Juvenile Justice Board and as such, he could not produce any documents before the learned Juvenile Justice Board. Learned counsel for the State submits that the 3 petitioner should have stated the public prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State regarding majority/minority of the opposite party no.2, but he has failed to avail the opportunity. The learned Juvenile Justice Board has considered the material on the record and has passed the impugned order. After hearing the learned counsel for both the parties and on perusal of the material on record, it appears that opposite party no.2 has filed an application before the learned Juvenile Justice Board for the determination of age. The case was heard on 21.04.2009 and the case was fixed for orders on 28.04.2009. It appears from the perusal of the impugned order that the accused as well as the prosecution have been heard. The learned Juvenile Justice Board has considered the documents produced on behalf of the opposite party no.2. The admission register of the school has been produced showing that date of birth of opposite party no.2 is 15.06.1993 and the same has also been mentioned in the transfer certificate granted by the I/c Headmaster of the Middle School, Barariya and after considering all these materials, the learned Juvenile Justice Board has considered the report submitted by the medical 4 board although it was not required under the provisions contained in Rule 22 (5) of the Bihar Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2003. In that provisions, it has been mentioned that in absence of the birth certificate given by the Corporation or Municipal or the date of birth certificate from the school first attended or matriculation or equivalent certificate (in absence of all these three materials) only a report of the medical board has to be called for, although in this case the medical board has also declared the opposite party as juvenile. Considering the facts and circumstances as stated above, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. This revision application is dismissed. V.K. Pandey ( Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)