IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1731 of 2010 Ram Narayan Paswan son of Mahendar Paswan, resident of village- Goddopur, P.S.- Paru, District- Muzaffarpur. .. Petitioner. Versus The State Of Bihar … Opposite Party. ----------- 2. 22.11.2011 Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to delete the name of opposite party no. 2 from the array of party. Permission is granted at his risk. 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 02.11.2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, VIth, Muzaffarpur in Session Trial No. 337 of 2001 arising out of Paru P. S. Case No. 237 of 2000 under Sections 363, 366, 366 (A)/34 I.P.C. by which the petition dated 13.4.2009 for declaring the petitioner a juvenile and to transfer the case before the Juvenile Justice Board has been rejected. The main contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the date of occurrence is 3.11.2000, whereas, the date of birth of the petitioner is 2nd February 1986 as 2 mentioned in the transfer certificate granted by the Primary School, Goddupur, Nadwan but the learned trial court has rejected the petition of the petitioner on the ground that by physical appearance, the age of the petitioner is 28-29 years and as such on the date of occurrence he was aged about more than 18 years and as such he cannot be declared a juvenile. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that under Section 7 A of the Act the petitioner is entitled to raise the question of juvenility before any Court. He has further submitted that under Rule 12(3) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules 2007, guidelines have been given to the Court or the Board, as the case may be, for consideration of the material and for holding enquiry for determination of age of a person. According to Rule 12(3) (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. In the case 3 in hands, the petitioner has produced the date of birth certificate from the school first attended, as such the learned trial court should have considered the certificate while determining the age of the petitioner which has not been done in this case. Mrs. Gulnar Begam, learned counsel for the State could not controvert the contention of the petitioner. After hearing learned counsel for both the parties and on perusal of the impugned order it appears that the learned trial court has based his enquiry for determination of age on the appearance of the petitioner which is not based on any rule. It appears that guidelines have been given under Rule 12(3) of Rules, 2007 for determination of age by the Board or the Court or the Committee, as the case may be. Certainly, these guidelines are mandatory in nature which have not been followed by the learned trial court. In that view of the matter, in my opinion, the impugned order is not fit to be sustained. It is set aside and the matter is remitted to the learned trial court for holding an enquiry afresh in view of the aforesaid 4 Rules and to pass order afresh in accordance with law. In the result, this application is allowed. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Court below through Fax at the cost of the petitioner. Kanchan (Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)