S.C.AGARWAL, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the revisionist and learned AGA for the State. This revision under Section 53 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (wrongly mentioned in the memo of revision as Section 397 Cr. P.C.) is directed against the order dated 5th June, 2010 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Court No. 10, Muzaffarnagar in S.T. No. 1825 of 2008, State Vs. Amit, whereby the application of revisionist Amit for declaring him a juvenile in conflict with law was rejected. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned AGA for the State and perused the impugned order and material available on record. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that an application was filed on behalf of the revisionist before the trial court for declaring him a juvenile on the ground that his date of birth was 25th March, 1993 and on the date of incident i.e. 28th August, 2008, his age was 15 years and five months and therefore, he be declared a juvenile. It is further submitted that the horoscope of revisionist was filed before the trial court. Father of the revisionist and the person, who prepared the horoscope, was also examined before the court concerned but learned Sessions Judge disbelieved all the evidence adduced on behalf of the revisionist and rejected the application. It is contended that learned trial court did not order medical examination of the revisionist for the purpose of ascertaining his age. Per contra, learned AGA supported the impugned order. Section 7-A of the Act provides as under :- "7-A Procedure to be followed when claim of juvenility is raised before any Court.- (1) Whether 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 enquiry, 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 order, and the sentence if any, passed by a court shall be deemed to have no effect." Rule 22 (5) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2004 provides as under :- "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 cases 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".
(2.) AS per Section 7-A of the Act, the Trial Judge was bound to hold an enquiry into the juvenility of the revisionist. The revisionist is not educated. Learned Sessions Judge was bound to obtain the medical opinion by a duly constituted Medical Board in accordance with Rule 22 (5) (IV). Learned Sessions Judge disposed of the application of the revisionist disbelieving the statements of his father and the person, who prepared the horoscope but no order was passed for medical examination of the revisionist by a Medical Board to ascertain his age. In these circumstances, the impugned order cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside.
(3.) THE criminal revision is allowed. The impugned order dated 5th June, 2010 is set aside and learned Sessions Judge is directed to obtain the medical opinion by a duly constituted Medical Board regarding the age of the revisionist and to decide the application of the revisionist for declaring him a juvenile, thereafter in accordance with law.;