IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.213 of 2011 RAJU RAI @ RAJU KUMAR . --- PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR . 2. CHANDRAWATI DEVI --- OPP. PARTIES. ----------- 02 29.03.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The claim of juvenility raised on behalf of the petitioner was considered and rejected by learned Ist Additional Sessions Judge, East Champaran, Motihari by order dated 22.01.2011 passed in Sessions trial no. 209 of 2009. It appears that on an application filed by the petitioner an enquiry in terms of Section 7A of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2000 was initiated in which host of documents including the matriculation certificate, registration card, mark sheet, admit card and School Leaving Certificate were produced and exhibited. It further appears that the petitioner was made to undergo medical test by a Board of Doctors. On 09.06.2010, report whereof (Exhibit-1) was submitted in which he was found aged between 19 to 20 years. It is to be noted here that the date of occurrence is 21.09.2008. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while assailing the order, submits that learned trial Court completely erred in rejecting the claim of the petitioner based on medical assessment. He submits that primacy given to medical assessment by the learned trial Court is contrary to the provision contained in Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Rules 2007 ( hereinafter referred to as the „Rule), particularly Rule 12 thereof. Rule 12 of the said Rules reads 2 as under:- “12. Procedure to be followed in determination of age- (1) In every case concerning a child or a juvenile in conflict with law, the Court or the Board, as the case may be, the Committee referred to in rule 19 of these rules shall determine 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 for that purpose.” (2) The Court or the Board or, as the case may be, the committee shall decide the juvenility or otherwise of the juvenile or the child or, as the case may be, the juvenile in conflict with law, prima facie on the basis of physical appearances or documents, if available, and send him to the observation home or in jail. (3) 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; (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 3 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. 4…….. 5……. 6…….” Based on the provision contained in the Rules, it has been submitted that learned Court below has committed a manifest in consideration of the materials and as such the order merits interference by this Court. It is next contended that even going by the medical assessment of the age of the delinquent/petitioner it would appear that he was aged between 17 to 18 years on the date of occurrence. Referring to Rule 12(3)(b) of the Juvenile Justice Rules, it is submitted that the Court should consider the lower side of the age with margin of one year. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State simply supported the impugned order. On perusal of the order impugned this Court finds that the learned trial Court has given primacy to the assessment of age by the medical Board. The provisions contained in the Rule quoted hereinabove provide otherwise. Having regard to the submissions and keeping in view the provision contained in Rule 12 of the Rules, this court is inclined to interfere with the order. Accordingly the order impugned dated 22.01.2011, passed by Ist Additional Sessions Judge, East Champaran, Motihari in Sessions Trial no. 209 of 2009, is quashed 4 and set aside. The matter goes on remand to the learned trial Court to consider the matter afresh and pass order in accordance with law. Sym ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)