Judgment UDAY SINHA, J. In this is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The two petitioners are accused in a case which has gained notoriety by the name of Pipra Carnage in which fourteen persons were killed and houses of the Schedule castes in the entire village were burnt. After investigation charge sheet was submitted against sixty-one accused including the petitioners. The case has been committed to court of session. The trial before the Sessions court commenced from Saturday the 10th May, 1980. By this application the petitioners have prayed for quashing their trial in sessions trial no. 77 of 1980 pending before Third Addl. Sessions Judge, Patna. The petitioners have also prayed for transferring their case to Children's Court. The petitioners moved the trial court praying that they cannot be tried by the said court by virtue of the provisions contained in the Bihar Children Second Ordinance, 1980. The learned judge called for a report from the Civil Surgeon in regard to the age of the petitioners. The report having been received after bearing parties, the learned Judge rejected the application, holding that the petitioners were not "child" within the meaning of the Bihar Children Second Ordinance, 1980. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned Judge dated 28.4.1980 in this behalf, the petitioners have moved this court by the present application. 2. The Bihar Children Second Ordinance, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as The Ordinance) was promulgated by Government of India, Minister of Home Affairs, order no. G.S.R. 53(E) dated the 17th February 1980. It is admitted on all bands that this ordinance has come into force. Section 2(d) defines "Child" as boy or a girl who has not attained the age of sixteen years or eighteen years, respectively. Section 4 of the Ordinance contemplates creation of child Welfare consisting or a Chairman and such other members as the State Government may thinks fit to appoint. Section 5 provides for creation of Children's Court. Section 9 empowers the State Govt. to set up Children's houses. Section 10 contemplates establishment of special schools for the reception of delinquent children under the Ordinance. Section 11 contemplates setting up observation homes. Section 12 enjoins upon the State Government to provide for a comprehensive programme of after care for completing the process or care and treatment or children under the Ordinance. to set up Children's houses. Section 10 contemplates establishment of special schools for the reception of delinquent children under the Ordinance. Section 11 contemplates setting up observation homes. Section 12 enjoins upon the State Government to provide for a comprehensive programme of after care for completing the process or care and treatment or children under the Ordinance. Learned Additional Advocate General stated that none of the institutions contemplated by sections 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11 and 12 have been set up by State Government, So that, apart from issuing a notification in terms of section 1(3), no step has been taken by the State Government to bring into effect the salutary provisions of the Statute, nor, have any rules been framed In terms or sec. 59 of the Ordinance. Since the coming into being of this Ordinance the Reformatory School Act, 1897 and section 27 of the Code of Criminal Procedure have ceased to apply. 3. The prayer or the petitioners is to transfer their cases to children's court instead of their being tried by the Sessions court. Since no Children's court has been set up, it is not possible to transfer their cases to children's court. Learned Counsel for the petitioners contended that the non-existence of Children's court cannot take away the effect or section 24 of the Ordinance which divests ordinary courts under the Code of Criminal Procedure to try child offenders along with other offenders, who are not children. According to Mr. Lalit Mohan Prasad, the Sessions court has no jurisdiction to try the petitioners along with fifty nine others. In considering this submission the first matter which has to be resolved is whether the petitioners are child within the meaning of the Ordinance. 4. Are the petitioners boys, who have not attained the age of sixteen years? An inquiry was held by the Additional Sessions Judge. The petitioners have relied upon the following materials to show that they are below sixteen years of age : (i) School certificates (Annexure -1 and 2) granted by the Head Master of Shri Lal Bahadur High School, Makhdumpur, Patna. (ii) Certificate of Civil Assistant Surgeon. Central Jail, Patna (Annexure 3). (iii) Affidavits sworn by respective mothers of the petitioners be fore Executive Magistrate, Patna Sadar (Annexure A and B). (ii) Certificate of Civil Assistant Surgeon. Central Jail, Patna (Annexure 3). (iii) Affidavits sworn by respective mothers of the petitioners be fore Executive Magistrate, Patna Sadar (Annexure A and B). The State, on the other hand, relies upon the report of the Civil Surgeon, Patna read with the report of Dr. S.P. Jaiswal, professor and Head of Department of Radiology Patna Medical College, Hospital. In order to assure myself the petitioners were produced before me on 9.5.1980 and I have had the benefit of looking at them. 5. Annellure-1 shows that the date of birth of petitioner no.1 Binesh Kumar Sinha is recorded in the School Admission Register as 25th of March, 1965 and that of petitioner no.2. Ajoy Kumar Singh as 5th of September, 1966 (vide Annexure.2). According to these certificates, the petitioners would be child. I am, however, unable to place any reliance upon them for it is well known that correct recording of age of wards in school registers is only few and far between. It is a rare aspect of our national character. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon the observation in Modi's Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology, 20th Edition at page 39 that entries in school registers and matriculation certificate regarding age can now be generally depended upon as the parents ordinarily give correct information about the age of their child when admitted into schools. This sentence in Modi's Medical Jurisprudence has been there for over 20 years. The least that I would say is that the observation is absolutely divorced from actual state of affairs. That is that learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance upon some cases to show that entries regarding age in school admission register based on the statement of mother is en titled to great weight. In this case there is nothing to show how the date of birth was recorded in the school admission register. At least there is nothing to show that it was recorded on the statements of the mothers of tile petitioners, In this state it is only ladles of sophisticated families who go to schools and only in sophisticated schools to get their children admitted. The petitioners belong to backward class and it is highly unlikely that the entries in regard to birth in the admission register would nave been made on the statements of respectively mothers. The petitioners belong to backward class and it is highly unlikely that the entries in regard to birth in the admission register would nave been made on the statements of respectively mothers. The affidavits sworn by the mothers arc equally valueless. The mothers being the most interested persons in saving their sons from the trial contemplated by the Code of Criminal Procedure, they can have no hesitation in swearing affidavits to suit purpose of the petitioners. The state of society from which the petitioners come, it is rather doubtful if the petitioners mothers would be remembering in which year the petitioners were born. I regret my inability to place any reliance upon the affidavit (Annexure A and B). Annexure-3 the opinion of the doctor is equally valueless. He has given opinion without any X-ray having been done. In regard to petitioner no.1 Binesh Kumar, the Jail doctor has mentioned about the existence of 13 teeth in the upper and lower jaws the doctor has mentioned of the existence of 14 teenth In each jaw of petitioner no.2 Ajoy Kumar. Learned counsel for the petitioners could not support the Jail doctor in this behalf. That being the efficiency of the Jail doctor in court, I will have great hesitation in accepting his opinion. The jail doctor has also mentioned about the absence of mustache and beard from the face of Binesh Kumar, petitioner no.1. From a visual inspection, it is obvious that be is used to shaving. Having seen both the petitioners myself in court, I have no manner of doubt that both the petitioners are above sixteen years of age both the petitioners have been certified by their Headmaster to have appeared at the Annual Secondary School Examination, 1980. The strata of Society from which the petitioners come, it is highly improbable that they would have taken that examination before the age of sixteen. 6. My visual observation finds ample support from the opinion of the Professor and Head of Department of Radiology, Patna Medical College Hospital, who has opined Binesh Kumar Singh, petitioner no.1 to be above twenty years and below twenty two years of age and Ajoy Kumar Singh petitioner no.2 as being of the age of 17 to 18 years. In regard to Binesh Kumar the Radiologist has reported that Epiphysis of the distal end of radius and ulna had appeared and fused completely. In regard to Binesh Kumar the Radiologist has reported that Epiphysis of the distal end of radius and ulna had appeared and fused completely. Epiphysis of the distal end of radius in males appears at the age of 16 years and fuses at the age of 18 years. The Epiphysis of the distal end of ulna appears at the age 10 to 11 years and fuses at the age of 18 years. The doctor has also noted that the Epiphysis of the head of the radius appeared and fused completely which taken place at the age of 16 years. The X-ray also shows that the Epiphysis of the crest of the illium had appeared and fused completely. This fusion, according to the doctor, takes place at the age of 19 to 20 years in males. Sternal end of the clavicle had appeared but had not fused. According to the doctor the appearance takes place between the ages of 15 to 19 years and fuses at the age of 22 years. In regard to Ajoy Kumar Singh petitioner no. 2, the doctor noted that the Epiphysis of the head of the radius had appeared and had fused completely which takes place at the age of 16 years. Epiphysis of the distal end of radius and ulna had appeared and had partially fused. The fusion takes place at the age of 18 years. The Epiphysis of crestal illium had appeared but had not fused. As stated in the case of Binesh Kumar Singh, petitioner no.1 the appearance takes place at the age of 17 years and fuses at the age of 19 to 20 years. The sternal end of clavicle had appeared but had not fused. Having seen the two petitioners for myself, I am inclined to place more reliance upon the evidence of the Radiologist and the Civil Surgeon as against the evidence of the Jail doctor the statements of the mothers and the entries in the School Admission Register. No certificate of birth maintained by any local body has been brought to my notice by the petitioners. I am positively of the view that the petitioners are above sixteen years of age. They cannot, therefore, be held to be 'Child' within the meaning of the Ordinance. I am in complete agreement with the views of the learned Judge In this behalf. 7. I am positively of the view that the petitioners are above sixteen years of age. They cannot, therefore, be held to be 'Child' within the meaning of the Ordinance. I am in complete agreement with the views of the learned Judge In this behalf. 7. Since the matter was urgent, I have heard both the parties at length without issuing notice. For all the considerations, mentioned above, I am of the view that the petitioners are not 'child' within the meaning of section 2(d) of the Ordinance. The application has no merit and is accordingly dismissed. Application dismissed.