BABAN BAITHA SON OF LATE KAPOOR CHAND BAITHA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-RAHANFPUR, P.S.-GARKHA, DISTRICT-SARAN Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State. However, despite issuance of notice to the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 by an order dated 7.12.2011 passed by a Bench of this Court, and despite valid service of notice upon them, they have chosen not to appear in this matter and to contest the issues raised on behalf of the petitioner.

(2.) The petitioner, being the informant of the criminal case, has preferred the present revision application under Section 53 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (in short 'the Act'), questioning the validity and correctness of the order dated 12.7.2010 passed by the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Saran at Chapra in Juvenile Enquiry No. 280 of 2010, arising out of Garkha P.S. Case No. 79 of 2010whereby the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 have been declared juvenile under the meaning of Section 2(k) of the Act. He has also challenged the appellate order dated 11th May, 2011, passed in Juvenile Appeal No. 38 of 2010 by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Saran at Chapra by which appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed and impugned original order dated 12.7.2010 was affirmed.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that for the purpose of determination of age of an accused, who claims to be juvenile under the meaning of the Act, a procedure has been prescribed under Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 (in short 'the Rules'). It is the case of the petitioner that before passing the impugned order dated 12.7.2010 declaring the opposite party nos. 2.and 3 to be juvenile, the mandate of Rule 12 of the Rules has not been complied with and, therefore, the impugned original order dated 12.7.2010, as also the impugned appellate order dated 11th May, 2011, are required to be set aside. It is also the case of the petitioner that neither the matriculation or equivalent certificate nor the date of birth certificates from the school first attended by the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 were either produced or were available before the learned Juvenile Justice Board. It is next contended that no birth certificates either issued by a Corporation or a Municipal Authority or a Gram Panchayat were produced by the opposite party nos. 2 and 3, therefore, in the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Juvenile Justice Board was required to issue direction for constitution of a Medical Board for seeking its opinion about the age of the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 before declaring them as juvenile, under the meaning of the Act.