KANT TRIPATHI,J. - (1.) THE revisionist Mohd. Azad Alam has preferred this revision against the order dated 4.8.2009 passed by Shri Ram Raj Ram, Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court No. 3, Maharajganj in Criminal Misc. Case No. 6 of 2009, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge has held that the revisionist was not juvenile under The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, on the date of occurrence and rejected the application moved by revisionist's father for declaring the revisionist as juvenile.
(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned AGA and perused the impugned order. It appears that the revisionist is facing trial in the case crime No. 1090 of 2008 under Section 8/20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, police station Sonauli, district Maharajganj. His father Mahmood Mian moved an application before the Court concerned for declaring him juvenile. It was stated on behalf of the revisionist that the revisionist was juvenile on the basis of his date of birth recorded in the school record, according to which the date of birth of the revisionist is 20.7.1995. The statement of the revisionist's father DW-1 Mahmood Mian as well as DW-2 Awadhesh Kumar Srivastava, a school teacher, were recorded during the inquiry. The statement of DW-2 Awadhesh Kumar Srivastava was recorded on the basis of the original school record. It may be mentioned that the learned lower Court had also obtained opinion of the Chief Medical Officer, Maharajganj, who opined that the revisionist was aged about.
(3.) THE learned lower Court disbelieved the entries made in the school record on the ground that ordinarily lesser age is shown in the school record for obtaining several benefits and as such it was not relevant for determining the age of the revisionist. The learned lower Court further held that entries made in the school record were not based on any verified fact and were based on mere oral assertion of the revisionist's father at the time of revisionist's admission in the school. The learned lower Court believed the medical opinion and held that the revisionist was major aged about 17-18 years on the date of occurrence.;