S.N.H.Zaidi, J. - (1.) THIS is a revision against the order dated 13.10.2008 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge/F.T.C.Court No.2, Bhadohi at Gyanpur in S.T.No.74 of 2005 State Versus Raj Kumar @ Pindyaha, whereby application 52 Kha moved on behalf of the accused revisionist for declaring him as a juvenile and sending his case to the Juvenile Justice Board, was rejected. Necessary facts giving rise to this revision in brief are that a minor daughter of complainant Babban Ram R/o village Amilor, Police Station Gopiganj of district Bhadohi was kidnapped on 9.4.2004 at about 3.00 A.M. when she had gone to the field to ease herself. A report under section 363, 366 I.P.C. was lodged against the revisionist on 14.5.2004. The police submitted charge sheet against the revisionist under the said sections, whereupon the Magistrate took cognizance and committed the case for trial to the Court of Sessions. On 23.11.2005 the learned trial Judge framed the charges of section 363 and 366 I.P.C. against the accused who challenged the said charges before the High Court under section 482 Cr.P.C. in Crl. Misc. Application No. 5147 of 2006. THIS Court decided the said application on 18.5.2006 and after setting aside the charges framed against the accused directed the trial court to rehear the accused on the question of charge. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge/F.T.C.Court No.1 Bhadohi again heard the accused and framed the charges of section 363,366 I.P.C. by order dated 17.8.2006. After the examination of the victim P.W.1 Smt. Kranti Devi and complainant P.W.2 Babban Ram the accused moved application 52 Kha for declaring him a juvenile and for sending his case to the Juvenile Justice Board on the ground that his date of birth is 20.7.86 and as such on the date of alleged incident, that is, on 9.4.04, he was below 18 years of age and a juvenile. In support of his contention he had examined his mother Smt. Savitri Devi and has also produced documentary evidence consisting of the copies of mark sheets and transfer Certificate of his educational institutions. The learned trial court undertook an inquiry for the determination of the age of accused revisionist and summoned the Principals and Head Master of the Schools where the accused had studied, for examination as Court's witnesses and hearing the parties observed that the date of birth of accused Raj Kumar is 20.7.1986 and on the date of incident, he was aged 17 years, 8 months and 19 days as per his educational certificates. The trial court has, however, further observed that since the accused had moved an application before the Court for directing Smt. Kranti Devi to go with him on the ground that she had married with him and had shown his age as 24 years before the Marriage Officer, therefore, he was not a juvenile and rejected that application by order dated 13.10.2008 which has been challenged by the accused before this Court in this revision. I have heard Sri Mohd. Islam, learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record. From the perusal of the impugned order it is sufficiently clear that for confirming the date of birth mentioned in the documents produced by the accused the learned trial court had summoned Jai Nath Mishra, Jata Shankar Pathak and Ram Sagar Tiwari, the Principals and Head Masters of the Schools where the accused had studied, as Court witnesses and the said witnesses have on the basis of the record of their Institutions, supported the contention of the accused that his date of birth is 20.7.86 and the learned trial court has rightly observed that, accordingly, on the date of incident, i.e. on 9.4.2004, the accused was below 18 years. In my opinion, after the said observation the trial court should have declared the accused as a juvenile and sent the case to the Juvenile Justice Board for disposal in accordance with the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. The trial court has committed grave illegality by refusing to hold the revisionist as a juvenile even after observing that he was below 18 years of age on the date of alleged incident of kidnapping of the complainant's daughter merely on the grounds that the parents generally reduce the age of their children at the time of their admission in the schools as it cannot be held as a legal presumption and that the accused had himself declared his age as 24 years before the Marriage Officer at the time of his alleged marriage with the victim as it cannot be accepted as evidence to prove the age of the accused in contradiction to the documentary evidence of age produced by the accused. The impugned order, therefore, cannot be allowed to sustain and requires interference. In view of above, the revision is allowed and the impugned order dated 13.10.2008 is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the trial court to dispose of application 52 Kha afresh in the light of the observations made hereinabove after giving an opportunity of hearing to the parties of the case.;