- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the revisionist, learned AGA and perused the record.
(2.) THIS criminal revision has been filed with a prayer to quash the orders dated 23-5-2008, 16-4-2008 and 22-1-2008 and allow the present criminal revision. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted revisionist being husband of the victim was charge - sheeted under S.498A, S.304B, S.323 IPC and 3/4 D. P. Act, Police Station Mahroni, District Lalitpur. Revisionist moved an application to declare him juvenile and by order dated 28-2-2007 on the basis of medical report he was found 17 years of his age. There were two certificates, in one of the certificate date of birth of revisionist was mentioned as 20-4-1988 while in another certificate filed on behalf of revisionist date of birth of revisionist was mentioned as 20-4-1990. Since there were two date of births mentioned in school record, hence revisionist was medically examined. Therefore, he was declared Juvenile by order dated 28-2-2007. Against the aforesaid order, an appeal was preferred, the appellate court allowed the appeal by judgment and order dated 22-1-2008 and remanded the matter to the Juvenile Justice Board to consider the matter afresh. After matter was remanded, the Juvenile Justice Board by impugned judgment and order dated 16-4-2008 held that the revisionist was not juvenile and his prayer for juvenility was rejected. Further the matter was referred for enquiry by the District Basic Education Officer regarding forgery committed by the person concerned, regarding issuing of forged certificate showing different date of birth.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the revisionist contended that since in two different certificates different date of births were mentioned, hence Principal Judge Juvenile Justice Board, Lalitpur has committed error in rejecting the application of revisionist because if date of birth mentioned in the school certificate was doubtful and same has to be decided on the basis of medical report.;