IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Revision No.1914 of 2009 Pankaj Kumar son of BalmikiPrasad @ Balmiki Paswan R/o village Saidpur, P.S. Kalo, Distt. Jehanabad…petitioner Versus The State Of Bihar ………………..opposite party. ---------- For the petitioner: Mr. Alamdar Hussain, Sr. Advocate. For the State: Mr. Md. Aslam Ansari, A.P.P. --------- 3 19.12.2011 The accused petitioner has preferred this revision application against the judgment and order dated 4.11.2009 passed by the learned Sessions Judge in Cri. Appeal No. 51 of 2009 by which the order dated 25.8.2009 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Jehanabad in G.R. No. 977 of 2009 arising out of Kako P.S. Case no. 50 of 2009 under section 307, 302 and other allied sections of the Indian Penal Code has been confirmed. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the date of occurrence is 26.5.2009 whereas the date of birth of the petitioner is 4.2.1992. As such the petitioner was a juvenile at the time of occurrence. The claim of his juvenility has been dismissed by the learned Juvenile Justice Board on the ground that the petitioner had earlier taken admission in the Government school Kako in the year 1995 and in the school registered his date of birth was mentioned as 21..5. 1990 as such he has been declared major but the claim of the petitioner is that the court or the Board has been given a guide line for the determination of age under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rule 2007, wherein under Rule 12 (3) the guide lines have been given to a Court or a Board as the case may be . 2 Learned counsel for the State Mr. Aslam Anasari could not controvert the contention of the petitioner. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State and on perusal of the material it appears that the petitioner has claimed his juvenility on the basis of date of birth mentioned in the matriculation certification granted by the Bihar School Examination Board, a copy of which has also been annexed with this application, according to which the date of birth of the petitioner is 4.2.1992. In Rule 12 (3) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, the guidelines have been given to the court or the Board as the case may be for the consideration of the documents for considering the juvenility matter of a person. It is better to quote Rule 12 (3) : “12. Procedure to be followed in determining of age- (3) In every case concerning a child or juvenile in conflict with law, the age determination inquiry shall be conducted by the Court or the Board or, as the case may be, the Committee by seeking evidence by obtaining- (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; (b) and only in the absence of either (i), (ii) or (iii) of clause (a) above, 3 the medical opinion will be sought from a duly constituted Medical Board, which will declare the age of the juvenile or child. In case exact assessment of the age cannot be done, the Court or the Board or, as the case may be, the Committee, for the reasons to be recorded by them, may, if considered necessary, give benefit to be child or juvenile by considering his/her age on lower side within the margin of one year, and, while passing orders in such case shall, after taking into consideration such evidence as may be available, or the medical opinion, as the case may be, record a finding in respect of his age and either of the evidence specified in any of the clauses (a) (i), (ii), (iii) or in the absence whereof, clause (b) shall be the conclusive proof of the age as regards such child or the juvenile in conflict with law.” The rule appears to be mandatory for the purpose of determination of age of juvenility and the petitioner has claim his juvenility on the basis of date of birth mentioned in the matriculation certificate granted by the Bihar School Examination Board. The genuineness of the matriculation certificate has not been challenged by any one. As such the age mentioned in the matriculation certification has to be considered by the learned court or the Board. It appears that the date of birth mentioned in the matriculation certificate has not been considered for determining his age and the claim of the petitioner for juvenility has been rejected only on the ground that the date of birth was mentioned in the school register as well as on his appearance the petitioner does not appear to be a juvenile and as such the claim of 4 juvenility has been denied by the Juvenile Justice Board. More or less same view has been taken by the learned appellate court. The decision taken by the Juvenile Justice Board as well as by the learned Sessions Judge is not in accordance with law. As such they are not fit to be sustained. Both the orders are set aside and the matter is remanded to the learned Juvenile Justice Board. The petitioner is at liberty to produce the matriculation certificate granted by the Bihar School Examination Board for the purpose of determination of age before the learned Juvenile Justice Board. The Juvenile Justice Board will pass a fresh order in accordance with law. In the result this application is allowed. M.Rahman (Amaresh Kumar Lal, J)