JUDGMENT Mr. A.B. Srivastava, J. - This is a revision against an order dated 20.11.1981 of the VIth Additional Sessions Judge Meerut whereby he rejected the prayer of the revisionists who are accused of offences under Sections 147,323 and 452 IPC along with other persons, to transmit their case for trial by a Juvenile Court. The prayer was pressed on the ground that on the date of offence 21.3.1989, the revisionists had not attained the age of 16 years and as such were juvenile within the meaning of Section 2(h) of the Juvenile Justice Act 1986. In support of their plea the revisionists filed their School Certificates of date of birth according to which Niraj Ku ma r was born on 6.9.1975 and Kamal Kishore on 6.9.1976. 2. The application of the revisionists was opposed on behalf of the prosecution and to detenrrine their correct age, their medical examination by the C.M.O. Meerut was got done. On the basis of X ray as well as physical examination, the C.M.O. by his report dated 14.11.1991 reported that the age of both the revisionists was completed 18 years. 3. The learned Additional Sessions Judge finding that the age in the School Certificate was grossly incorrect, on the basis of physical features and the medical report, observing that two revisionists were not juvenile on the date of offence, rejected their prayer for transfer of the case for trial to the Juvenile Court. 4. In Bhoop Ram v. State of U.P., 1989S.C. Cases (Cri) 486, it has been Laid down that in the absence of any thing showing that the entries in the school certificate were incorrect, the same cannot be rejected on the basis of surmise that generally parents understate the age of their children at the time of their admission. It was further observed that possibility of error exists in medical opinion regarding age which is based on estimation of the Doctor. 5. In the instant case, however even on medical opinion regarding age, two revisionists appeared to have not attained the age of 16 years on the date of offence. The medical examination of the revisionists took place two years seven months 24 days after the date of occurrence. 5. In the instant case, however even on medical opinion regarding age, two revisionists appeared to have not attained the age of 16 years on the date of offence. The medical examination of the revisionists took place two years seven months 24 days after the date of occurrence. On the said date the age of both the revisionists was stated to be completed 18 years, meaning thereby that on the date of occurrence they were well below 16 years of age. Under these circumstances the mere fact that in the school records the age of revisionists was mentioned further less, will be of no significance and for the purposes of Section 2(h) and all other relevant provisions of Juvenile Justice Act 1986 revisionists will be treated as Juvenile, entitled to be tried only by the Juvenile Court. 6. While forming a conclusion in this regard it can also not be lost the sight of that the age as reported by the Doctor is based on estimation and could vary on either side by a year or even more. 7. Under above circumstances; the impugned order of the learned Sessions Judge being incorrect and against law deserves to be set aside and the prayer of the revisionists for trial by Juvenile Court has to be allowed. The revision is allowed. The order of the learned Sessions Judge is set aside and it is directed that the revisionists shall be tried for the offence charged, by the Juvenile Court. For that purpose their case shall be separated from the other accused persons and along with certified copies of relevant records shall be sent to the Juvenile Court concerned fortrial without delay.