TAUSIF AHMAD @ SONU S/O MUKHTAR UZZAMAN UNDER NATURAL GUARDIANSHIP OF HIS FATHER MUKHTAR UZZAMAN SON OF LATE MD. ISRAIL. RESIDENT OF MOH Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Despite clear and unambiguous guidelines laid down in the Rules claimed under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), relating to holding of inquiries and determination of the age of a person, who claims to be a juvenile, this is unfortunate that the dispute with respect to claim of juvenility of the petitioner is still continuing since 2009, though he was declared to be a juvenile by the Juvenile Justice Board on 15.04.2009 on the basis of entry of date of birth in the certificate issued by Bihar School Examination Board of having passed matriculation examination. Indisputably, in the said matriculation certificate, the petitioner's date of birth is mentioned as 17.02.1992 and accordingly, as on the date of occurrence, i.e., 30.04.2008, his age was determined as 16 years two months and 13 days, by the Juvenile Justice Board.

(2.) The Informant of the concerned Alamganj P.S. Case No. 113 of 2008 (Opposite party No. 2 herein) questioned the legality of determination of juvenility done by the Juvenile Justice Board by filing a criminal revision application in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Patna. Genuineness of matriculation certificate and the entry of date of birth therein were not disputed. The informant, who is said to be the full brother of the petitioner's mother claimed in criminal revision proceeding that the petitioner's mother had given birth to twins in the year 1988 and subsequently she had given birth to the petitioner on 17.04.1990 and thus, he being above 18 years as on the date of the occurrence, i.e., 30.04.2008, he could not have been declared juvenile. In support of his contention the informant/Opposite party No. 2 filed three birth certificates issued by the Doctor of the Tripolia Social Services Hospital, Patna. Learned Sessions Judge, Patna allowed the Criminal Revision No. 661 of 2009 by an order, dated 13.10.2009 merely on the ground that opinion of the Medical Board ought to have been sought for determination of petitioner's age since controversy had been raised by the informant by producing birth certificate of the petitioner issued by the Hospital. After having set aside the order of the Juvenile Justice Board, dated 15.04.2009, whereby the petitioner was declared as juvenile, learned Sessions Judge, Patna remanded the matter back to the Juvenile Justice Board with a direction to make a fresh enquiry in respect of the age of the petitioner after taking into account the birth certificates filed on behalf of the informant/Opposite party No. 2 and "after obtaining report from a Medical Board in respect of the age of the appellant."

(3.) Curiously, the learned Sessions Judge, Patna recorded in his order that undoubtedly, the matriculation certificate shall prevail over the opinion of the Medical Board. After having recorded so, what made, learned Sessions Judge, Patna remand the matter back to the Juvenile Justice Board again in the absence of any dispute over the genuineness of the matriculation certificate and the entry therein is not visible.