KASHI NATH PANDEY,J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the revisionist, I.N. Pandey and the learned Additional Gov­ernment Advocate for the State.
(2.) AKHILESH @ Ramesh son of Sri Akhilesh @ Ramesh v. State of U.P. and Anr. Sewa Lal has filed this revision against order dated 29-9-2008 passed by Addi­tional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No. 2), Bhadohi in Session Trial No. 124A-A/01 State v. Akhilesh @ Ramesh, in which learned Sessions Judge rejected the application of the revisionist in case crime No. 134 of 2001 under Sections 302/201, I.P.C. for declaring him juvenile. It is argued that according to the medical report on the date of incident the age of the revisionist was 17 years 4 months and 5 days but it is noted that the incident is of 2001 whereas in 1999 the revisionist was a voter representing himself to be a major person, where as the Medical Board's report is dated 18-11- 2008 in which his age has been con­cluded to be 25 years plus minus two years. Whereas the question of schools certificate is concerned, there is contra­diction, in High School certificate his date of birth has been mentioned to be 1-3-1985, whereas in Primary School certifi­cate his date of birth has been mentioned to be 9-6-1984. Even according to the medical report he was at the verge of at­taining the age of majority, therefore, com­bined effect of all the evidence, the learned lower Court reached to the conclusion that on the date of incident he was not juvenile but was major. The conclusion drawn by the learned lower Court is based on reasonable ground and substantive evi­dence, therefore, it cannot be said to be perverse. If the revisionist is representing himself to be a voter in 1999 representing himself to be major, he is barred by prin­ciple of estoppel to claim otherwise after being implicated an accused in an offence punishable under Section 302/201, I.P.C. but this is one aspect of the case.
(3.) ACCORDING to Rule 12 of the Juve­nile Justice (Care and Protection of Chil­dren) Rules, 2007: "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, it 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. Section 397, Criminal Procedure Code calling for records to exercise powers of revi­sion.-(1) The High Court or any Sessions Judge may call for and examine the record of any proceeding before any inferior Criminal Court situate within its or his local jurisdic­tion for the purpose of satisfying itself or him­self as to the correctness, legality or propri­ety of any finding, sentence or order, recorded or passed, and as to the regularity of any proceedings of such inferior Court, and may, when calling for such record, direct that the execution of any sentence or order be sus­pended, and if the accused is in confinement, that he be released on bail or on his own bond pending the examination of the record." ;