CHANDRIKA SAO Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. Inspite of service of notice OP No. 2 is not represented by any counsel.

(2.) This Criminal Revision is directed against the order dated 24th July, 2010 passed in Cr. (Juvenile) Appeal No. 14/2010 by the Sessions Judge, Jamui, whereby he declared the OP No. 2 as juvenile after setting aside the order dated 10th May, 2010 passed by the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Jamui in connection with Barhat (Malaypur) P. S. Case No. 92/2009, G. R. No. 1687/2009.

(3.) The Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board gave a finding against OP No. 2 in respect of his claim that he was a juvenile mainly on account of date of birth recorded in the school register which was proved by the headmaster of the school. The age in the register of school first attended by the OP No. 2 was different and showed that he had seized to be a juvenile on the date of occurrence, but the subsequently issued matriculation certificate in respect of OP No. 2 showed a different date of birth and entitled him to be declared a juvenile. The learned Principal Magistrate, relied upon Rule 22 (5) of the Bihar Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as the Bihar Rules), for giving suitable consideration to the date of birth certificate from the school first attended and the date of birth in the matriculation certificate. A perusal of Rule 22 (5) of the Bihar Rules shows that there is no primacy accorded to three kinds of certificate mentioned in Rule 22 (5) and only in absence of such documents, the medical opinion of a Medical Board is required to be obtained for determining the age of the suspected delinquent.