IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER NAVEEN YADAV VS. STATE OF RAJ. SB Criminal Revision Pet. No. 1376 of 2008 under Section 397 read with section 401 Cr.P.C. against the order dated September 9, 2008 of Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.1 Ajmer in Sessions Case No. 43 of 2008 whereby the application for transferring the matter to the Juvenile court was rejected. Date of Order : November 24, 2008 PRESENT HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA Mr. Sumit Ahuja & Mr. Veyankatesh Garg, for the petitioner. Mr. B.N. Sandu, PP for the State BY THE COURT : This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated September 9, 2008 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.1 Ajmer in Sessions Case No. 43 of 2008 whereby the trial court rejected the application of the petitioner regarding transferring the matter to the Juvenile Court. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner filed application under section 49 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children ) Act, 2000 (in short JJ Act) praying therein that his matter may be transferred to the Juvenile Court as he is a juvenile. The petitioner submitted that a false case was lodged against him at Alwar Gate Police Station bearing FIR No. 83 of 2008 for the offence under sections 363, 366 and 376 IPC. The accused was arrested on March 31, 2008. After challan the police submitted charge sheet and the case was transferred to the Court of Sessions Ajmer reckoning the age of the accused to be 19 years at the time of commission of offence. The learned trial court rejected the application filed by the petitioner under Section 49 of the JJ Act by the order dated September 9,2008. Against this order the present revision petition has been preferred. 3. Mr. Sumit Ahuja, learend counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the petitioner's birth took place in Sachdeva Hospital Rewari on July 15, 1990. The name of mother of the petitioner was recorded in the register maintained by the Hospital and Hospital authorities has also issued letter to Nagar Palika Rewari on July 15, 1990 for registering the birth. On the basis of this letter the Sub Registrar Birth and Death Registration Unit Nagar Parishad Rewari duly registered the birth in the register. On the basis of this entry in the birth register the Municipal authorities issued birth certificate registered at No.1803 dated July 18, 1990 mentioning name of the petitioner's father as Ratan Singh and his monther's name as Sumitra Devi. The date of birth recorded in the certificate is July 15, 1990. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the cases reported in Rajinder Chandra vs. State of Chhatisgarh and another (AIR 2002 SC 748), Reepik Ravinder vs. State of A.P. (1991 Cr.L.J. 595), Ku. Anita vs. Atal Bihari and another (1993 Cr.L.J.549), Devendra Singh vs. State of M.P. (1998 Crl. L.J. 3654), Brij Mohan Singh vs. Priya Brat Narain Sinha and others (AIR 1965 SC 282), Harpal Singh vs. State of Himachal Pradesh ( AIR 1981 SC 361) and Bhoop Ram vs. State of U.P. (Criminal Appeal No. 228 of 1989 decided on April 4,1989 by the Apex Court) and requested that the order dated September 9, 2008 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge be set aside and the accused petitioner be declared as a Juvenile. 4. On the other hand Mr. B.N. Sandu, Public Prosecutor objected the arguments advanced by the learned counsel. Attention of this court was drawn to the fact that the father of the petitioner himself quoted the date of birth of the petitioner as 7.9.89 in the information given in the service record. At the time of first admission of the petitioner in School Form and in the School Scroll Register the date of birth of the petitioner was mentioned as 7.9.89. In the statement of father of the petitioner recorded by the trial court he mentioned the date of birth of his son as 7.9.89. Accordingly the age of the petitioner is 18 years on the date of incident. The learned Public prosecutor further submitted that the offence committed by the petitioner is heinous in nature and that the petitioner has raped a girl who is reading in school of CRPF campus at Ajmer. 5. For these reasons I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order so as to interfere in the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. The revision petition being devoid of merit stands dismissed. Stay 6. In view of the order passed in the main petition, the stay application also stands disposed of. (Mahesh Chandra Sharma) J. OPPareek/