1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. ORDER Ramvaran Vs. State of Rajasthan SB CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.393/2008. Under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. DATE OF ORDER: 10th July, 2008. PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P. PATHAK Mr. Anil Jain for the petitioner. Mrs.Nirmala Sharma PP for the State. BY THE COURT: This revision petition under Section 53 of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to, 'as the Act') has been filed against the order dated 10th April, 2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.2, Dholpur in Sessions Case No.158/2007 whereby application moved by the accused petitioner has been dismissed to consider him as Juvenile. It is contended that the learned trial court has committed serious illegality in not considering the accused-petitioner as juvenile in view of the provisions of the Act. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel and perused the impugned order. It appears that the learned trial court recorded two statements for the purpose of determining his age. One statement is of Dr. V.N.Singh Tomar and another is of Ram Kishan, the father 2 of the accused. Dr. V.N.Singh Tomar has clearly stated in his cross examination that the accused-petitioner was not below 18 years of age. His age was between 18 to 20 years. The other witness, the father of the accused, has simply stated that the accused was below 18 years of age but in so far as other aspects are concerned, he has shown his ignorance. He further stated that he does not know as to when he was married. From a very brief statement of the father of the accused-petitioner, it does not appear that the accused was below 18 years of age. The learned trial court further found that the accused-petitioner present in court was more than 18 years of age. He was fully developed having mustache etc. His health was sound. The learned trial court in the above circumstances rejected the application moved by the petitioner to consider him as juvenile. The finding of the learned trial court recorded appears to be reasonable and proper. The evidence has rightly been appreciated. I have no doubt in my mind that in the light of the material which was available before the learned trial court, the possible conclusion was not to consider the petitioner as juvenile. There does not appear any merit in this revision petition and, therefore, same is liable to be dismissed. In the result, the revision petition stands dismissed. (S.P. PATHAK,J) bblm