Subhasis Dasgupta, J. - (1.)The impugned order dated 17/09/2018 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum- Special Judge, Kurseong, in connection with Kurseong P.S Case No. 132 dated 20/07/2018 numbered as Special Case No. 10 of 2018 rejecting the prayer of the revisionist/accused soliciting a direction upon I.O to enquire and submit a report with regard to the age of the victim in context with the Aadhar Card of the victim, is the subject of challenge in this revisional application.
(2.)Learned advocate for the revisionist submitted that evidential value of an Aadhar Card mentioning the date of birth of a person could not be disregarded in application of the provisions of Sec. 35 of the Evidence Act on the simple ground that the Aadhar Card was prepared by public official in discharge of the public/official duties, and the same should have been treated by the court below superior to the School Certificate collected by the I.O in course of the investigation revealing the date of birth of the victim.
(3.)Per contra, learned advocate for the State submitted that there was no such illegality committed by the learned Special Judge in rejecting the prayer of the revisionist/accused, which was basically furnished banking upon an Aadhar Card. It was not taken care of under the provisions of the law being not an age proving document, according to legislative intent expressed so far in several legislations operating in this field, meant for determination of age of child. Thus, according to State, Aadhar Card may be a document of proof of identity of holder, but the same can not be regarded as proof of age.