Ganga Ram vs State Of U.P. & Another
2016 Latest Caselaw 6549 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 


 
A.F.R.
 
Reserved on 23.09.2016
 

 
Delivered on 19.10.2016
 

 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 14 of 2015
 

 
Revisionist :- Ganga Ram
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. & Another
 
Counsel for Revisionist :- Vinod Kumar Yadav
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate, Rajesh Kumar
 

 
Hon'ble Ravindra Nath Mishra-II,J.

1. This Criminal Revision has been filed under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. read with Section 53 Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (herein after referred as the "Act") against order dated 18.12.2014 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Ambedkar Nagar in Criminal Appeal No. 26 of 2014 arising out of inquiry No. 26 of 2014 (State Vs. Om Prakash) in Crime No. 99 of 2014 under Sections 363, 366 & 376 I.P.C. and Section ¾ Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, Police Station Hanswar, District Ambedkar Nagar, whereby learned Additional Sessions Judge has allowed the appeal against the order dated 5.11.2014 of Juvenile Justice Board and has declared respondent No.2-Om Prakash Chauhan a juvenile.

2. Relevant facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that an F.I.R. was lodged against respondent No.2 under Sections 363 and 366 I.P.C. bearing Crime No. 99 of 2014, which was later on converted under Section 363, 366 and 376 I.P.C. and Section ¾ Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2002 at Police Station Hanswar, District Ambedkar Nagar. Respondent No. 2 surrendered before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambedkar Nagar and moved an application for declaring him juvenile on that ground that at the time of incident he was minor, as per his High School Mark-sheet. An inquiry was conducted by Juvenile Justice Board, Ambedkar Nagar and on thorough inquiry, it was found that there was contradictions regarding date of birth of respondent No.2 in his educational records, therefore, Juvenile Justice Board directed for his medical examination by a Medical Board for determination of his age. In medical examination, the age of respondent No.2 was found 20 years. Juvenile Justice Board, therefore, rejected his application to declare him juvenile vide order dated 5.11.2014.

3. Feeling aggrieved by the order of Juvenile Justice Board, respondent No.2 filed Criminal Appeal No. 26 of 2014 before District and Sessions Judge, Ambedkar Nagar, which was allowed vide order dated 18.12.2014 setting aside the order dated 5.11.2014 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board and respondent No.2 was declared Juvenile. Being dissatisfied with the impugned order dated 18.12.2014, the present revision has been filed by the complainant-Ganga Ram.

4. Learned counsel for the revisionist has argued that order dated 18.12.2014 is un-reasonable and un-sustainable in eye of law, as the appellate Court did not consider the evidence available on record. In view of contradictions regarding age of respondent No.2 in his educational records the Board had rightly directed for medical examination of respondent No.2 by a Medical Board for determination of his age. As per medical report, respondent No.2 was major at the time of incident. There was no application of judicial mind in passing the impugned order by the appellate Court.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2 has argued that the age mentioned in High School Mark-sheet is sufficient to establish that respondent No.2 was minor at the time of incident. There is no evidence on record to show that the High School Mark-sheet was fabricated. Learned appellate Court has rightly, relying on High School Mark-Sheet of respondent No.2, declared him Juvenile.

6. For appreciation of issue raised in this case, it is necessitous to record certain provisions with regard to determination of age of juvenile in conflict with law. Section 7-A of U.P. Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2000 (Act of 2000 for brevity) prescribes procedure to be followed where the question of juvenility is raised before any Court. Section 7-A of the Act of 2000 provides as under:

"S.7A. Procedure to be followed when claim of juvenility is raised before any court.--(1) Whenever a claim of juvenility is raised before any court or a court is of the opinion that an accused person was a juvenile on the date of commission of the offence, the court shall make an inquiry, take such evidence as may be necessary (but not an affidavit) so as to determine the age of such person, and shall record a finding whether the person is a juvenile or a child or not, stating his age as nearly as may be:

Provided that a claim of juvenility may be raised before any court and it shall be recognised at any stage, even after final disposal of the case, and such claim shall be determined in terms of the provisions contained in this Act and the rules made thereunder, even if the juvenile has ceased to be so on or before the date of commencement of this Act.

(2) If the court finds a person to be a juvenile on the date of commission of the offence under sub-section (1), it shall forward the juvenile to the Board for passing appropriate orders and the sentence, if any, passed by a court shall be deemed to have no effect.

20. Special provision in respect of pending cases.--Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, all proceedings in respect of a juvenile pending in any court in any area on the date on which this Act comes into force in that area, shall be continued in that court as if this Act had not been passed and if the court finds that the juvenile has committed an offence, it shall record such finding and instead of passing any sentence in respect of the juvenile, forward the juvenile to the Board which shall pass orders in respect of that juvenile in accordance with the provisions of this Act as if it had been satisfied on inquiry under this Act that a juvenile has committed the offence.

Provided that the Board may, for any adequate and special reason to be mentioned in the order, review the case and pass appropriate order in the interest of such juvenile.

Explanation.--In all pending cases including trial, revision, appeal or any other criminal proceedings in respect of a juvenile in conflict with law, in any court, the determination of juvenility of such a juvenile shall be in terms of clause (l) of Section 2, even if the juvenile ceases to be so on or before the date of commencement of this Act and the provisions of this Act shall apply as if the said provisions had been in force, for all purposes and at all material times when the alleged offence was committed.] "

7. The word "the court shall make an inquiry" used in Section 7-A of the Act of 2000 are of importance by virtue of which the Court has been conferred power to make an inquiry by taking such evidence as may be necessary to determine the age of such persons with a rider that such claim shall be determined in terms of the provisions contained in the Act and the Rules made thereunder. Rules making power has been given to Central Government as well as State Government by virtue to provisions of Section 68 contained in the Act of 2000, which may be extracted as under:

"68. Power to make rules.--(1) The State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, make rules to carry out the purposes of this Act.

Provided that the Central Government may, frame model rules in respect of all or any of the matters with respect to which the State Government may make rules under this section, and where any such model rules have been framed in respect of any such matter, they shall apply to the State until the rules in respect of the matter is made by the State Government and while making such rules, so far as practicable, they conform to such model rules."

8. In exercise of power conferred by the provisions of Section 68 of the Act of 2000, State Government framed Rules called " The Uttar Pradesh Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2004". (for brevity, it shall be referred herein after as "U.P. Rules of 2004")., which may be reproduced as under:

"22. Procedure to be followed by a Board in holding inquiries and the determination of age.-

(1) In all cases under the Act the proceedings shall be conducted in as simple a manner as possible and care shall be taken to ensure that the juvenile or child against whom the proceedings have been instituted is given home like atmosphere during the proceedings.

(2) When witnesses are produced for examination, the Board shall be free to use the power under Section 165 of the Indian Evidence At, 1872, (Act No.1 of 1872), to question them so as to bring out any point that may go in favour of the juvenile or the child.

(3) While examining a juvenile or child and recording his statement, the competent authority shall be free to address the juvenile or child in any manner that may seem suitable, in order to put the juvenile or child at ease and to elicit the true facts, not only in respect of the offence of which the juvenile or child is accused, but also in respect of the home and social surroundings and the influence to which the juvenile or child might have been subjected.

(4) The record of the examination shall be in such form as the Board may consider suitable having record to the contents of the statement and circumstances in which it was made.

(5) In every case concerning a juvenile or child, the Board shall either obtain-

(i) a birth certificate given by a corporation or a municipal authority;

or

(ii) a date of birth certificate from the school first attended; or

(iii) matriculation or equivalent certificates, if available; and

(iv) in the absence of (i) to (iii) above, the medical opinion by a duly constituted Medical Board, subject to a margin of one year, in deserving cases for the reasons to be recorded by such Medical Board, regarding his age and, when passing orders in such case shall, after taking into consideration such evidence as may be available or the medical opinion, as the case may be, record a finding in respect of his age.

(6) The State Government shall recognize voluntary organizations, which have 10 years experience of child welfare to supervise and submit periodical reports, as directed by the Board regarding the orders passed under Clauses (b) and (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 15 of the Act.

(7) The Board shall, in Form-I, order a Probation Officer, or otherwise to conduct a special investigation, reporting on the character and antecedents of the juvenile or child with a view to assess the best possible mode for placement, such as, with the family, an institution or otherwise permissible under the Act.

(8_ When a juvenile or child is placed under the care of a parent or a guardian and the Board considers it expedient to place the juvenile or child under the supervision of a probation officer, it shall issue a supervision order in Form-II.

(9) The competent authority may, while making an order placing a juvenile under the care of a parent, guardian or fit person, as the case may be, direct such parent, guardian or fit person to enter into a bond in Form IV with or without sureties.

(10) Whenever the Board orders a juvenile or child to be kept in an institution, it shall forward to the Superintendent of such institution a copy of its order, in Form III with particulars of the home and parents or guardian and previous record.

(11) The juvenile or child shall be lodged in a home closest to place where he belongs.

(12) The Superintendent of an institution, certified as special home under sub-section (2) of Section 9 of the Act, shall be informed in advance by the Board before any juvenile or child is committed to it.

(13) The Superintendent of the said institution may, on receipt of the information, intimation in writing objections, if any, to the committal of the juvenile or child and the objections shall be taken into consideration by the Board before the juvenile or child is committed to the said institution.

(14) In case the Board orders the parent of the juvenile or child, or the juvenile or child to pay a fine, the amount realized shall be deposited in Government Treasury."

9. Simultaneously, Central Government has also been provided power to frame model rules in respect of all or any of the matters with respect to which the State Government may make rules under Section 68 of the Act of 2000. In exercise of this power Central Government also framed model rules in 2007 called " Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules 2007". (for brevity, it shall be referred herein after as "Central Rules of 2007"). These Rules are comprehensive guide as to how the provisions of Juvenile Justice Act, 2000 are to be implemented. Rule 12 of Rules, 2007 was introduced providing the procedure to be followed by the Courts, the Board and the Child Welfare Committees for the purpose of determination of age in every case concerning a child or juvenile or a juvenile in conflict with law. Rule 12 of Rules 2007, may be quoted 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 or 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 appearance 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 orders in such case shall, after taking into consideration such evidence as 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) if the age of a juvenile or child or the juvenile in conflict with law is found to be below 18 years on the date of offence, on the basis of any of the conclusive proof specified in sub-rule (3), the Court or the Board or as the case may be the Committee shall in writing pass an order stating the age and declaring the status of juvenility or otherwise, for the purpose of the Act and these rules and a copy of the order shall be given to such juvenile or the person concerned.

(5) Save and except where, further inquiry or otherwise is required, inter alia in terms of Section 7A, section 64 of the Act and these rules, no further inquiry shall be conducted by the court or the Board after examining and obtaining the certificate or any other documentary proof referred to in sub-rule (3) of this rule.

(6) The provisions contained in this rule shall also apply to those disposed of cases, where the status of juvenility has not been determined in accordance with the provisions contained in sub-rule (3) and the Act, requiring dispensation of the sentence under the Act for passing appropriate order in the interest of the juvenile in conflict with law."

10. There is a marked distinction between Rule 12 of Central Rules 2007 and Rule 22 of U.P. Rules 2004, with regard to priority of documents to be taken into consideration while making inquiry in juvenility of the accused. There has been difference of opinion among ourselves. One set of argument was that Rule 12 of Central Rules 2007 are applicable only in those states where model Rules have not been framed and where the states have framed their own Rules, the model Rules 2007 would not apply. The other set of argument was that after framing of Rules of 2007 by Central Government, the Rules of 2004 framed by the State Government have lost their importance and in all cases the Rules of 2007 shall apply. However, this controversy was set at right by a recent Full Bench decision of this Court in Criminal Revision No. 4694 of 2011 : Jai Prakash Tiwari Vs. State of U.P. and another decided on 21.9.2016, wherein learned Single Judge of this Court feeling similar difficulty in application of Rules for determination of age of the accused, referred following two questions to be answered by the Larger Bench:

"1.Whether the U.P. Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children ) Rules 2004 need be recast consequent upon addition of Section 7-A of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children)Act, 2000 (as amended by Act No. 33 of 2006).

2. And in case it is found that they need not be recast whether the U.P. Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children )Rules 2004 framed by State Government or The Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Rules 2007 framed by the Central Government shall apply to the matter, in Uttar Pradesh."

11. After an exhaustive discussion on the point Hon'ble Division Bench came to the conclusion that though under Section 68 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2006, State Government has been given power to make Rules to carry out the purpose of the Act, Rules of 2007 framed by Central Government shall apply to the State where the State has no Rules of its own but in those States also where Rules have been framed by the State Government but they are not conforming Rules framed by the Central Government. Thus Hon'ble Division Bench is of the view that the Central Rules of 2007 will have overriding effect on the provisions of U.P. Juvenile Justice Rules, 2004 and recourse to determine juvenility on the basis of the provisions as contained in U.P. Rules of 2004 cannot be subscribed.

12. Now after the decision of Full Court

in Jai Prakash Tiwari Vs. State of U.P. and another (supra) the provisions as contained in Rules, 2007 shall be applicable irrespective of different order of priority of documents to be taken into consideration for determination of age given in Rules,2004 as framed by the State Government. The Observations made by the Full Bench in Jai Prakash Tiwari Vs. State of U.P. and another (supra) may be extracted as under:

"The question that has been referred to above will get its reply from the aforementioned two provisions, inasmuch as, the provisions of U.P. Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2004 (U.P. Rules) certainly will have to be in line with the provisions as are contained under Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Rules 2007 (Central Rules) and till the provisions of 'U.P. Rules' are not brought in line with the 'Central Rules' framed by the Central Government, the recourse to determine juvenility on the basis of the provisions as contained under U.P. Rules, cannot be subscribed. The U.P. Rules will have to be recast in tune with the Model Rules framed by the Central Government and commonly known as 'The Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Rules 2007' as Rule 96 of the Rules, 2007 clearly provides that until the new rules conforming to these rules are framed by the State Govt. concerned under Section 68 of the Act, 2000, the Rules, 2007 shall mutatis mutandis apply in that State, in view of this, as far as provision of U.P. Rules are concerned, till they are not revised in consonance with the provisions as are contained under Central Rules, the same cannot be made foundation and basis for determining juvenility and the Courts are duty bound to answer the question of juvenility strictly on the parameters of the provisions that are contained under Central Rules and not on any other parameters as has been provided for.

The procedure that has been provided for determining the question of juvenility under Central Rules as to how the question of juvenility is to be determined, the same will have a prevailing effect on U.P. Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2004 as the State of Uttar Pradesh has not framed any rule in tune with the Central Rules referred to above and Central Rule would apply for the inquiry to be held until Rules in this regard are framed by the State of Uttar Pradesh, in view of this, answer to the question posed i.e. "whether the U.P. Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children ) Rules 2004 need be recast consequent upon addition of Section 7-A of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (as amended by Act No. 33 of 2006)" is 'Yes' as the provisions of the U.P. Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Rules 2004 on its own after introduction of Section 7-A and keeping in view the provisions of the Central Rules until and unless it is not revamped and not at all brought in consonance with the provisions as are contained under the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Rules 2007, the same cannot be subscribed and in view of this, same needs to be modified.

The answer to the second question i.e. "And in case it is found that they need not be recast whether the U.P. Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children )Rules 2004 framed by State Government or The Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Rules 2007 framed by the Central Government shall apply to the matter, in Uttar Pradesh" is that it needs to be modified and till it is not revamped, on the issue of juvenility being raised, the answer to the said question will have to be found on the parameters of the provisions as are contained under The Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Rules 2007 and the same shall apply to the matter in the State of Uttar Pradesh also."

13. What is expected from the Court or the Board or Welfare Committees acting under Section 7-A of the Act of 2000 is to make an inquiry for determination of age and not an investigation or a trial. Inquiry stands at different footing than investigation and trial. The inquiry has to be conducted under Act of 2000 and not under the Code of Criminal Procedure. The procedure laid down for inquiry under the Code naturally cannot be applied in any inquiry under Juvenile Justice Act of 2000 read with Rule 12 of 2007. In other words, the law regarding the procedure to be followed in such inquiry must be found in the enactment which confers jurisdiction of the Court to hold the inquiry.

14. While explaining the nature of inquiry under Section 7-A of Juvenile Justice Act, 2000 read with Rule 12 of 2007 Hon'ble Apex Court in Ashwini Kumar Saxena Vs. Madhya Pradesh, (2012) 9 SCC 750 has observed as under:

"32. Consequently, the procedure to be followed under the JJ Act in conducting an inquiry is the procedure laid down in that statute itself i.e. Rule 12 of the 2007 Rules. We cannot import other procedures laid down in the Code of Criminal Procedure or any other enactment while making an inquiry with regard to the juvenility of a person, when the claim of juvenility is raised before the court exercising powers under Section 7-A of the Act. In many of the cases, we have come across, it is seen that the criminal courts are still having the hangover of the procedure of trial or inquiry under the Code as if they are trying an offence under the penal laws forgetting the fact that the specific procedure has been laid down in Section 7-A read with Rule 12.

33. We also remind all courts/Juvenile Justice Boards and the Committees functioning under the Act that a duty is cast on them to seek evidence by obtaining the certificate, etc. mentioned in Rules 12(3)(a)(i) to (iii). The courts in such situations act as a parens patriae because they have a kind of guardianship over minors who from their legal disability stand in need of protection.

34. "Age determination inquiry" contemplated under Section 7-A of the Act read with Rule 12 of the 2007 Rules enables the court to seek evidence and in that process, the court can obtain the matriculation or equivalent certificates, if available. Only in the absence of any matriculation or equivalent certificates, the court needs to obtain the date of birth certificate from the school first attended other than a play school. Only in the absence of matriculation or equivalent certificate or the date of birth certificate from the school first attended, the court needs to obtain the birth certificate given by a corporation or a municipal authority or a panchayat (not an affidavit but certificates or documents). The question of obtaining medical opinion from a duly constituted Medical Board arises only if the abovementioned documents are unavailable."

15. The Apex Court deprecating the practice of the courts in making a roving enquiry with regards to the correctness of the date of birth entered in matriculation or equivalent certificates or other documents has observed as below:

"Age determination inquiry contemplated under the JJ Act and the 2007 Rules has nothing to do with an enquiry under other legislations, like entry in service, retirement, promotion, etc. There may be situations where the entry made in the matriculation or equivalent certificates, date of birth certificate from the school first attended and even the birth certificate given by a corporation or a municipal authority or a panchayat may not be correct. But court, Juvenile Justice Board or a committee functioning under the JJ Act is not expected to conduct such a roving enquiry and to go behind those certificates to examine the correctness of those documents, kept during the normal course of business. Only in cases where those documents or certificates are found to be fabricated or manipulated, the court, the Juvenile Justice Board or the committee need to go for medical report for age determination.

16. Now reverting back to facts of the instant case, an application of Rule 2007 to the case it is noteworthy that matriculation or equivalent certificates have been given preference over other documents like Birth Certificate from the School or that issued by a Corporation or a municipal authority. According to Rule 12 Sub-Clause (3) only in absence of the matriculation or equivalent certificates, Court has to be looked into other documents for determination of age. Admittedly, High School Certificate showing date of birth of respondent No.2 is available, but it could not find of Juvenile Board because the Board found some difference in date of birth entered into record of school and that mentioned in High School Mark-sheet. No where it is mentioned in the finding of Juvenile Justice Board dated 9.11.2014 that the Mark-sheet produced by respondent No.2 is fabricated or manipulated. Some discrepancy was found by the Board in the statement of witnesses which could not support the date of birth of respondent No.2 as 5.1.1997. The observations made by the Division Bench in Jai Prakash Tiwari Vs. State of U.P. and another (supra) finds support from the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in Abuzar Hossain alias Gulam Hossain Vs. State of West bengal, (2012) 10 SCC 489. Following the principles have been laid down in Abuzar Hossain alias Gulam Hossain's case (supra):

"As to what materials would prima facie satisfy the court and/or are sufficient for discharging the initial burden cannot be catalogued nor can it be laid down as to what weight should be given to a specific piece of evidence which may be sufficient to raise presumption of juvenility but the documents referred to in Rule 12(3)(a)(i) to (iii) shall definitely be sufficient for prima facie satisfaction of the court about the age of the delinquent necessitating further enquiry under Rule 12. The statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code is too tentative and may not by itself be sufficient ordinarily to justify or reject the claim of juvenility. The credibility and/or acceptability of the documents like the school leaving certificate or the voters' list, etc. obtained after conviction would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no hard and fast rule can be prescribed that they must be prima facie accepted or rejected. In Akbar Sheikh and Pawan these documents were not found prima facie credible while in Jitendra Singh the documents viz., school leaving certificate, marksheet and the medical report were treated sufficient for directing an inquiry and verification of the appellant's age. If such documents prima facie inspire confidence of the court, the court may act upon such documents for the purposes of Section 7-A and order an enquiry for determination of the age of the delinquent."

17. Hon'ble Apex Court in Parag Bhati (Junvenile) through legal Guardian-mother-Smt. Rajni Bhati Vs. State of U.P. 2016(2) Crimes (SC) 268 has held that matriculation or equivalent certificate has to be treated as conclusive proof of age. The relevant observation of the Court may be extracted as below:

"28. It is settled position of law that if the matriculation or equivalent certificates are available and there is no other material to prove the correctness, the date of birth mentioned in the matriculation certificate has to be treated as a conclusive proof of the date of birth of the accused. However, if there is any doubt or a contradictory stand is being taken by the accused which arises a doubt on the correctness of the date of birth then as laid down by this Court in Abuzar Hossain (supra), an enquiry for determination of the age of the accused is permissible which has been done in the present case."

18. As it has been seen as above under Section 7-A of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2000 read with Rule 12 of 2007, Court is not obliged to make a roving inquiry and to go behind the certificate to examine correctness of the doucument, which is shown to have been kept during the normal course of business, the Juvenile Justice Board in its order dated 5.11.2014 has committed the mistake of making roving inquiry into the correctness of Mark-sheet submitted by respondent No.2, which has been rectified by the appellate Court in its order dated 18.12.2014. In case of availability of High School Mark-sheet none other documents than High School Mark-sheet is to be looked into.

19. In impugned judgement dated 18.12.2014 passed in criminal appeal No. 26 of 2014, learned appellate Court setting aside the finding of the Board dated 5.11.2014 with regard to the determination of age of juvenile in conflict with law has found age of respondent No.2 as 5.11.1997 on the basis of High School Mark-sheet. Learned lower Court did not find any fabrication or manipulation in the Mark-sheet in question. Hence the appellate Court cannot held to have committed any mistake in relying on the Mark-sheet.

20. Thus I do not find any material irregularity or illegality in the impugned judgment warranting any interference. Hence, the revision is liable to be dismissed.

21. The revision is, therefore, dismissed.

Order Date :- 19.10.2016

Arvind