IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1167 of 2008 SUDESH KUMAR @ FUCHU son of Sunil Kumar resident of village Islampur (Baraj) PS Islampur, District Nalanda at present Nalanda Colony Kankarbagh PS Kankarbagh District Patna Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2 23-10-2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. This revision has been preferred against the order dated 19.7.2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, IX, Patna in Sessions Trial no. 223/2008 whereby and where under the petitioner’s prayer to declare him juvenile has been rejected. It appears that petitioner is an accused in a case u/ss 364A, 302/34 and 120B of the IPC. It further appears that petitioner was apprehended in the case on 5.8.2007 and since then he is in jail. According to learned counsel on 11.3.2008 a petition was filed on behalf of the petitioner before the court below praying therein that his case be separated and sent to juvenile court as he was juvenile (below the age of 18 years) on the date of occurrence. It appears from the impugned order that the court below directed the Civil Surgeon, Patna to constitute a medical board for ascertaining the age of the petitioner and, accordingly, the same was constituted. The medical board submitted its report estimating the age of petitioner between 19- 20 years. The court below by order dated 19.7.2008 rejected the prayer of the petitioner on the ground that he is major. The submission of the learned counsel is that the court below has not considered the evidence given in support of the - 2 - petitioner’s age and only examined the report of the medical board and decided the matter. The submission is that as per Rule 12 sub section 3(b) of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 the court below ought to have considered the birth certificate issued by the Rajkiya Shishu Shiksha Sadadan Madhya Vidyala, Kadamkuan where he had studied in class I. The court below also should have considered the date of birth as recorded in the Patna Municipal Corporation register which was also produced. Thus, the submission of learned counsel is that the impugned order is against the provisions of Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice Rules, 2007. This court finds substance in the argument of learned counsel that the court below while deciding the matter did not consider the relevancy of the above two papers filed by the petitioner. This application is, accordingly, allowed and the impugned order dated 19.7.2008 is hereby set aside. The matter is remanded to the court below who shall consider and dispose of the same afresh in accordance with law. BKS/ (M. Saran, J.)