IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1732 of 2010 SANTOSH KUMAR @ PINTU KUMAR @ PINTU …PETITIONER Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR …OPPOSITE PARTY For the petitioner :Mr. Naresh Chandra Verma For the State :Mr. Aditya Narain Singh, APP ----------- 02. 09.12.2010 Heard counsel for the parties. Petitioner is facing charge punishable under sections 20/22 of the NDPS Act. He is aggrieved by order dated 07.05.2010, passed by Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Hajipur, Vaishali, whereby his prayer was refused to recognize him as a juvenile on the date of occurrence, i.e. 24.1.2010. It appears that aggrieved by the aforesaid order, petitioner preferred an appeal being Cr. Appeal no.20/2010. Said appeal was considered and rejected. Learned appellate court found that there is no infirmity in the order of J.J. Board. Petitioner was made an accused in a case instituted under sections 20/22 of the NDPS Act with an allegation that he was found possessed of 10 kgs. of Ganja. Accordingly, an FIR was drawn on 24.01.2010. It is the case of the petitioner that on his appearance before the court, he was sent to remand home. Subsequently, the investigation concluded whereafter charge- sheet was submitted (Annexure-4) in which he was found approximately 17 years of age. A claim was raised before the court (learned Sessions Judge) on behalf of the petitioner that he is a juvenile and his date of birth is 24.05.1994. Under the 2 orders of the J. J. Board, a Medical Board was constituted which submitted its report on 15.04.2010. In order to prove his juvenility based on school leaving certificate depicting his date of birth as 24.05.1994, several witnesses were examined. Records of the school(s) were also called for. On a consideration of oral evidence, learned Juvenile Justice Board found that the records were not worth reliance for the reasons indicated in the order itself. It has been recorded in the order that the Medical Board submitted its report on 15.04.2010 wherein his age was found about 18 years based on physical, dental and radiological examination/report. On a consideration of materials available on record, learned Juvenile Board did not find it safe to rely on the Medical Board opinion and, accordingly, his claim was rejected. The appellate court also agreed with the view. Learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the order, submits that at the time when he was taken into custody, he was about to take matriculation examination for which applications etc. were already submitted. Subsequent to his arrest, the result of the matriculation examination was published and the mark-sheet has been enclosed in the present application as (Annexure-2A) wherefrom it would appear that his date of birth is 24.05.1994. It is next contended that even going by the findings of the Medical Board which was constituted at the behest of the court itself, it would appear that he was found 18 years of age on the date of report which was three months subsequent to the date of occurrence. It is the stand 3 of the petitioner that going by these two documents/report, the court ought to have come to the conclusion that the petitioner is/was a juvenile on the date of occurrence. Referring to the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children)Act and the Rule framed thereunder(hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act and Rule’), it is submitted that the court has first to rely on the matriculation certificate and if there is any dispute/suspicion relating to the same, the court may call for necessary records from the said Board. It is the firm stand of the petitioner that even the opinion of the Medical Board supports the stand of the petitioner that he was less than 18 years of age on the date of occurrence. On the strength of these submissions, it is submitted both the courts below have erred in law in not allowing the claim of the petitioner. Learned APP, on the contrary, submits that Medical Board constituted in this matter found his date of birth close to 18 years. The occurrence had taken place three months prior thereto. Going by the findings by the Board, it may appear that he was juvenile on the date of occurrence. He, however, does not dispute the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner that in terms of the Act and Rule framed thereunder, the first consideration has to be made with reference to the matriculation certificate if it is found that the petitioner had taken the examination and passed the same. From annexure-2A, it appears that the petitioner had taken the Board examination conducted by Bihar School 4 Examination Board whereafter he was declared passed and issued a mark sheet wherefrom it appears that his date of birth is 24.05.1994. Having regard to the aforesaid submissions, this Court is satisfied that the matter requires re-consideration by the Juvenile Justice Board in the light of the matriculation certificate to be produced by the petitioner read along with Medical Board’s opinion which is already on record. Consequently, the application is allowed. Impugned orders are quashed and set aside. The matter goes on remand to the learned J.J. Board, Hajipur, Vaishali for a fresh consideration of the matter in terms of section 7A of the Act read with Rule framed thereunder. Learned J.J. Board shall also take into consideration the documents to be placed by the petitioner including the matriculation certificate. hr ( Kishore K. Mandal )