1 Amk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 548 OF 2009 Sameedul Nisha Mohd. Haroon ... Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent Mr. Arun Berry for the applicant. Mr. A.S. Shitole APP for the respondent State. CORAM : MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J. Dated :- 18th September, 2009. PC : 01. This Revision Application is filed against the order of the Child Welfare Committee, Suburban Mumbai District passed on 26th August, 2009 declaring the age of Rubina @ Heena whose age is under challenge in this Revision Application. Order of deciding age of Rubina @ Heena is challenged. The committee members have in their order have held that the age of Rubina @ Heena is 15-16 years as per medical report done on 26th December, 2008 and 2 Committee considered lower side age i.e. 15 years i.e. Section 49(2) of the Act and the girl was declared as minor i.e. 15 years and 8 months and thereafter have passed the order as she was vulnerable situation. Her custody was restored to the Superintendent, Special Home For Minor Girls, Deonar till she attain majority. 02. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has produced birth certificate issued by the Bombay Municipal Corporation on 27.06.2007. Said certificate shows the date of birth of Rubina 28th January, 1988 and it was registered on 19th February, 1988. Thus at the time of incident i.e. on 10th October, 2009 the girl was 20 years old. Learned APP appearing for the State submits that the Investigating Officer has informed him that the police have verified the truthfulness of the certificate issued by BMC. About the truthfulness & correctness of the contents in certificate and it was confirmed on 6th January, 2009 that her date of birth was on 28th January, 1988. 3 03. It is pointed out to me that RMO Dr. S.C. Mohite of Nair Hospital has medically examined her on 20th October, 2008 and opined age of the girl was 17-18 years. The Committee members have observed that the Committee had sent her for age verification to Nagpada Police Hospital and she was examined on 23rd December, 2008 by Police Surgeon and her age was stated as 15-16 years and thereafter as per Section 49(2) of the Act, her lower side age was considered was accepted and she was considered as minor. 04. The learned counsel for the applicant categorically pointed out that the birth certificate obtained from the Corporation was produced before the Child Welfare Committee and it was within the knowledge of concerned Investigating Officer. They have produced before the C.W.C. and the truthfulness of the said certificate was confirmed by the Investigating Officer in the month of January, 2009. If it was so then it was the duty of the members of the C.W.C. who have passed the order to consider that documents and 4 to pass the correct order. If the Investigating Officer confirms the truthfulness of the birth certificate issued by the Corporation then it is his duty to place it before C.W.C. and the members of the C.W.C. are bound to consider all the documents placed by the relatives or the applicants before the Committee on the point of her age. If at all they come across discrepancy of the opinion about the age which is certified by two Medical Officers, then they should endeavor to sent the girl for her ossification test to Medical Board to enable C.W.C. to determine the age correctly and to be more accurate on the point. Keeping the victim who is major in any Child Care Center without verifying properly her age, amounts the illegal detention of the person and such taking away the liberty of the person is unjust. This Revision Application is allowed in terms of prayer (i) as follows. (i) Set aside the order dated 26th August, 2009 passed by the Welfare Committee Metropolitan in C.C. No. 4531/P/2008 vide RA No. 54/2008 in LAC No. 00/2008 of the Social Service Branch C.B.C.I.D., Mumbai and release the grand daughter Heena Iqbal Khan @ Rubina Sikandar Khan, 5 being a major. (MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.)