SABINA,J. - (1.) Petitioner has filed this revision petition under Section 397/401 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.') challenging the orders dated 29.9.2015 and 8.7.2016.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that this court vide order dated 31.08.2015, had upheld the order passed by the Family Court whereby, respondent No. 2 was held to be a major. Initially, date of birth of respondent No. 2 had been given in the school record as 17.04.1995. However, at a later stage, when the respondent No. 2 appeared for eighth class examination, his date of birth was changed in the record to 17.04.1997. No reliance could be placed on the entry with regard to the date of birth of the respondent No. 2 in class eighth and class tenth examination certificates. In support of his arguments, learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in in case of Kulai Ibrahim @ Ibrahim v. State Rep. 2014(4) RLW 3024 (SC) By the Inspector of Police B-1, Bazaar Police Station, Coimbatore, wherein, it was held as under:- "Though in this paragraph, this Court observed that the question of obtaining medical opinion from a duly constituted Medical Board arises only if the above-mentioned documents are unavailable, this Court went on to further observe that only in those cases, where documents mentioned in Section 12(a) (i) to (iii) of the J.J. Act, 2000 are found to be fabricated or manipulated, the court, the Juvenile Justice Board or the Committee need to go for medical report for age determination. Thus in cases where documents mentioned in Section 12(a)(i) to (iii) of the J.J. Act, 2000 are unavailable or where they are found to be fabricated or manipulated, it is necessary to obtain medical report for age determination of the accused. In this case the documents are available but they are, according to the police, fabricated or manipulated and therefore as per the above observations of this Court if the fabrication is confirmed, it is necessary to go for medical report for age determination of the appellant. Delay cannot act as an impediment in seeking medical report as Section 7-A of the J.J. Act, 2000 gives right to an accused to raise the question of juvenility at any point of time even after disposal of the case. This has been confirmed in Ashwani Kumar. Moreover, J.J. Act, 2000 is a beneficent legislation. If two views are possible scales must tilt in favour of the view that supports the claim of juvenility. While we acknowledge this position in law there is a disquieting feature of this case which cannot be ignored. We have already alluded to the counter affidavit of Shri R. Srinivasalu, Inspector of Police. If what is stated in that affidavit is true then the appellant and his father are guilty of fraud of great magnitude. A case is registered against the appellant's father at the Ukkadam Police Station under Sections 467, 471and 420 of the IPC. Law will take its own course and the guilty will be adequately punished if the case is proved against them. Since the case is being investigated, we do not want to express any opinion on this aspect. Till the allegations are finally adjudicated upon and proved, we cannot take registration of the offence against the appellant."
(3.) Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 has submitted that as per Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules 2007 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules'), age of the juvenile is to be determined on the basis of his matriculation or equivalent certificate.;