NAYAN MANDAL Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

(2.) THIS revision is directed against the judgment dated 9.9.2008 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sahibganj in Cr. Appeal No.34 of 2008, by which judgment, he found that the appellant is not a juvenile and his claim is based on a school register, which is not correct and he is more than eighteen years of age and thereby he confirmed the order passed by A.C.J.M. Rajmahal dated 5.12.2007, whereby learned A.C.J.M had also found that as per the medical board, petitioner is aged about 18 and 1/2 years on the date of occurrence i.e. 13.10.2007.

(3.) IT has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that as per the Juvenile Justice Rule, Chaptar -2, Section 22(5) which correspond to chapter12 (3) of the Juvenile Justice, care and protection Rule, 2007, it is stated that in an enquiry, the court will first rely upon birth certificate granted by municipality or its equivalent or birth certificate given by corporation or municipal authority and if they are not available, then they will rely on Medical Board which declares the age of a Juvenile on the basis of exact assumption. It is further submitted that since the age as per the school certificated was available, learned A.C.J.M as also learned Sessions Judge wrongly relied on medical certificate and thus passing the impugned order is bad and fit to be set aside.