IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1816 of 2009 PRAVEEN KUMAR @ PRABIN KUMAR, Son of Jay Shree Mandal, resident of Village- Mathurapur, Police Station- Nathnagar, District-Bhagalpur ------------ Petitioner Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- For the petitioner : Mr.B.N.Mishra, Mr.B.K.Mishra, Advocates. For the State : Mr. Ganesh Kumar, A.P.P. ----------- 02 06-01-2010 This revision has been preferred under Section 53 of the Juvenile Justice ( Care and Protection of Children) Act,2000 against the order dated 18.9.2009 passed in S.T No.1022 of 2006 /Tr.No.38 of 2009 by the 7th Addl.Sessions Judge , Bhagalpur, by which he has rejected the petition for declaring the petitioner juvenile of the day of occurrence. While the case was pending for trial, a prayer was made on behalf of the petitioner to declare him juvenile. The petitioner filed some documents before constitution of a Medical Board for the purpose and the Board submitted its report assessing the age of the petitioner above 20 years. Rule 12 is complete in itself to reply all the doubts, which can be raised in favour of a juvenile or against him that has been taken into consideration by the trial court also, but - 2 - according to the learned counsel , some mistake has been committed while reaching the result. From para-3 of the impugned order , there is clear indication that the court below was of the firm opinion that he was competent enough to determine the age prima facie on the basis of physical appearance but in my view that is not correct view. Sub rule (1) of Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice ( Care and Protection of Children ) Rules,2007 ( hereinafter referred to as “the Rules”) speaks about the determination of the age of such juvenile or child or a juvenile in conflict with law within a period of thirty days from the date of making of the application . Sub rule (2) of Rule 12 is to the effect that the Court or Board can determine the age prima facie on the basis of physical appearance or documents, if available , but the lower court failed to appreciate that this provision is meant only to send the juvenile in conflict with law to the observation home or in jail. Sub rule (3) of the Rule runs as follows: “ 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 ; - 3 - (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, 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 the child or juvenile by considering his/her age on lower side within the margin of one year, and, while passing order 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 aforesaid rule goes to show that the enquiry is must and purpose to be taken into consideration that is also defined which is reply of the divergent views of the courts for accepting age of any one. If the view of the trial Court in interpreting Sub rule (2) of the Rules is accepted, then there - 4 - would be revival of the same. Admittedly, in the case, neither the Matriculation or equivalent certificate nor the date of birth Certificate from School first attended nor the birth certificate given by the Corporation or Municipal authority or Panchayat was made available .So the court below was bound to obtain opinion of the Medical Board , which is done accordingly. Petitioner was examined by the Board on 15.6.2009 and has been shown above 20 years. His age is to be accepted on lower side within the margin of one year. Apparently the petitioner was less than 17 years of age on the date of occurrence, which occurred on 6.2.2006. In the result, the revision application is allowed. The impugned order dated 18.9.2009 passed by the 7th Addl.Sessions Judge,Bhagalpur is set aside. The case is remitted back to the court below for deciding the age of the petitioner afresh in accordance with law and observations made above. A.F.R./NKS/- ( Mandhata Singh, J)