IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1627 of 2009 1. SAKALDEO YADAV @ SAKALDEO KUMAR S/O ROHAN YADAV VILL.- NATHUDIH, P.S.- LAKHISARAI (CHANAN), DISTT.- LAKHISARAI-----------------------Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3. 16.12.2009 Heard the parties. In a case for the offence under sections 376/511 of the Indian Penal Code a claim was made on behalf of the petitioner about his being juvenile. Some enquiry type procedure appears adopted by the lower court in which matriculation certificate was furnished on behalf of the petitioner. Juvenile Justice Board did not consider the same and without any material had observed the petitioner as adult. A senior most Magistrate is made Principal Judge. It is expected from him that he would apply right provisions. At present the Juvenile Justice(Care and Protection of Children) Act 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) is applicable in all pending cases whether offences of the same is committed earlier or after coming into force of this Act. Section 14 of the Act provides for enquiry by the Board regarding juvenile. Rule is also there. The Juvenile Justice(Care and Protection of Children) rules, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Rules’). Rule 12(3) of the Rules provides for preference among documents to be taken into consideration and matriculation or equivalent certificates is first to be taken into consideration for deciding the age. That never can be oversighted. Moreover, no material(document or evidence) is taken into consideration by the Board while deciding the petitioner as adult which never can be accepted. Another mistake appears committed by the appellate court in distinguishing the petitioner from Sakaldeo Yadav and Sakaldeo Kumar. That can be done and should be done. But collected materials should be taken into consideration if that differs the reality mean to say that not in the name of a fake person a relief is awarded. As the order of the Juvenile Justice Board appears basically wrong, so it is not proper to make any direction to the appellate court. In the result, the revision petition is allowed. The judgment and order passed by the Addl. District and Sessions Judge-II, Lakhisarai and order of the Juvenile Justice Board are set aside. The case is sent back to the Juvenile Justice Board to decide the matter afresh in accordance with law. Sudip ( Mandhata Singh, J.)