1 S.B. Cr. Revision Petition No. 826/2006 Gulab Singh vs State of Rajasthan DATE OF ORDER : 12.2.2007 HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI G.S. SARRAF Shri BS Rathore,for the petitioner. Shri SN Tiwari, Public Prosecutor. <><><> This revision petition is directed against the order dated 12.4.2006 of Special Judge (NDPS Cases) Sri Ganganagar whereby the application of the petitioner that he is a juvenile and, therefore, the inquiry be made by Juvenile Justice Board was dismissed in absence of adequate grounds. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. The petitioner has examined Shyam Kumar, Head Master, Government School, Sunderpura and has relied on school certificate wherein his date of birth is recorded as 7.7.1991. The trial court has got the petitioner examined medically for determining his age. According to age-report of the Medical 2 Jurist, Government Hospital, Sri Ganganagar, the age of the petitioner is 16 to 18 years. There is no other evidence. After hearing two sides, it is difficult to sustain the impugned order. On a consideration of the evidence available on record I am of the opinion that the petitioner could not have completed 18 years of age on 23.8.2005 the date of commission of the offence. I am persuaded to take this view because of three factors. The first is that the petitioner has produced school certificate in which his date of birth is recorded as 7.7.1991. There is no material before me to hold that the school certificate does not relate to the petitioner or that the entires therein are not correct or that the school certificate is fabricated. The second factor is that according to the age-report of the Medical Jurist, Government Hospital, Sri Ganganagar, the age of the petitioner is 16 years to 18 years. Needless to say in view of this age-report of the Medical Jurist, the age of the petitioner could be less than 18 years on the date of commission of the offence. The third factor is that there is no evidence to the contrary. ON account of all these factors, I am of the view that the petitioner would not have completed 18 years of age on the date of commission of the offence i.e. 23.8.2005. It, therefore, follows that the petitioner should have been dealt with under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. Consequently, the revision petition is allowed, the 3 impugned order dated 12.4.2006 is set aside, the application of the petitioner moved in the trial court for treating him juvenile is allowed and the trial court is directed to forward the petitioner and the record of the proceedings to the competent authority having jurisdiction over the proceedings. (G.S. SARRAF), J. cpgoyal/-