IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.426 of 2010 MUNNA PANDIT @ RAKESH KUMAR PANDIT S/O CHANDRADEO PANDIT ---- PETITIONER Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR . 2. JITENDRA KUMAR S/O SRI PRASAD SINGH --- OPP. PARTIES. For the Petitioner : Mr. Kanhaiya Prasad Singh, Sr. Advocate. For the O.P.No.2 : Mr. K.N.Yadav, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, APP ----------- 08. 01.10.2010 The petitioner claims juvenility on the date of occurrence (27.09.2008). He is facing charge punishable under Sections 302/34,364/34 and 120B of the Penal Code besides other minor Sections of Penal Code. The claim of juvenility appears to have been raised based on his matriculation certificate. The application dated 04.11.2009 filed on behalf of the petitioner claiming juvenility is Annexure-A to the supplementary affidavit. In the present application, petitioner has averred as under:- “6. That the petitioner has passed in the matriculation examination in the year 2008 and after perusal of the certificate issued by the Bihar School Examination Board goes to show that the age of the petitioner is 16 and half years as it appears that he happens to be juvenile as the date of birth of the petitioner/revisionist is 15.4.1992 can be taken even at any stage.” Learned Court below by impugned order passed in Sessions Trial no. 2614 of 2008 has rejected the said claim of the petitioner based on assessment of age made by a Medical Board. Three reasons appear to have been assigned by learned Court below for disallowing the claim of the petitioner. 2 (i) At the time of production of the petitioner in the Court he was assessed 20 years. (ii) The matter was referred to the Medical Board constituted by the Court wherein his age was assessed between 20 to 22 years. (iii) The petitioner did not raise any objection with regard to the assessment of his age made by the Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the order submits that provision of the Juvenile Justice ( Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2000 ( for short the „Act‟) and Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children)Rules, 2007, (hereinafter referred to as the „Rules‟) framed under the Act lays down certain categories and obliges the Court to proceed in accordance therewith. Referring to Rule 12, it is contended that if the claim of juvenility is raised based on matriculation certificate, the Court has to consider the same. If there is/was any doubt, the Court could have made appropriate enquires/verification with regard to the certificate. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per matriculation certificate, his date of birth is 15.04.1992 and considering the date of occurrence he was definitely less than 17 years of age on the said date (date of occurrence). Learned counsel relies on a judgment of this Court reported in 2010(1) PLJR 466 (Murari Yadav @ Murari Rai vs. State of Bihar paragraph no.7). Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2/informant, on the other hand, supports the impugned order. It is contended that the 3 petitioner accepted the medical assessment and as such interference with the order is not called for. It is next contended that the claim of juvenility was raised at a belated stage when the case was fixed for framing of charge. It is next contended that when the petitioner moved the bail application no claim based on juvenility was raised. Learned APP appearing on behalf of the State, on the other hand submits that in view of the fasciculus of provisions contained under the Act and the Rules framed thereunder, learned Court below, was obliged to make an enquiry in terms with Section 7A of the Act read with Rule 12 of the Rules framed thereunder. I have considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties. It is now settled beyond cavil that the claim of juvenility can be raised at any stage of the proceeding. Such claim cannot be brushed aside simply on the ground that at the initial stage of the case such claim was not raised. In that view of the matter the submission of learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 that claims was raised at the belated stage is not sustainable in law. From the materials placed before this Court, it appears the petitioner claimed to have passed matriculation examination, and the claim was thus raised based on the matriculation certificate wherein his date of birth appears to have been recorded as 15.04.1992. Rule 12 of Rules framed under the Act fell for consideration before this Court on numerous occasions. A Bench of this Court in the case of Murari Yadav (supra) had the occasion to deal with the said aspect of the matter. Learned counsel for the petitioner has rightly placed reliance on the aforesaid judgment (paragraph nos. 6 and 7), in order to submit that it was mandatory on the part of the Court below to make an enquiry in 4 terms of Section 7A of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder and to consider the matriculation Certificate which was the basis of his claim. On a consideration of the submissions made on behalf of the parties and after going through the materials placed on record, this Court is satisfied that learned Court below committed an illegality in not making an inquiry and considering his claim based on the matriculation certificate in accordance with Act and the Rules framed thereunder simply on the ground that no objection was raised to the opinion of the Medical Board. Such non objection, in my view, will not confer jurisdiction on the Court in accepting the age assessed by the Medical Board which is inconsistent with the Rules. I am, thus, satisfied that the order dated 27.01.2010, requires interference. Consequently the order dated 27.01.2010 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge XIV, Patna, in connection with Session Trial no. 2614 of 2008 is hereby quashed and set aside. Matter is remitted back to the learned Court below for making an enquiry in terms of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder and to consider the claim of the petitioner in accordance with law. If there is any doubt, Court may make an enquiry, and seek clarification/verification from the concerned Board and the School and may allow the parties to lead oral evidence. It is further clarified that learned trial Court, in view of the aforesaid order, may embark upon the enquiry itself or may assign it to the concerned Juvenile Justice Board. Sym ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)