JUDGMENT The petitioner aggrieved by order dt. 2.1.89 passed by the 5th Addl. Sessions Judge Indore in S. No. 108/84 whereby prayer made by him that he be tried by Children's Court has been rejected, has filed this revision application. The learned Sessions Judge by the aforesaid order has directed that the petitioner shall be tried by the Sessions Court itself. According to the prosecution, on 7.11.83, the petitioner committed offence under S. 302 I.P.C., by causing the death of one of the students of Central School, Indore in the school campus itself. While submitting the charge-sheet, the investigating agency has shown the age of the petitioner to be 16 years and two months on the date of occurrence. The petitioner filed an application stating therein that his date of birth is 10.5.68 and on that basis he was below 16 years of age on the date of occurrence i.e. on 7.11.83. In support of his case, the petitioner produced before the learned trial Judge, the entries made in the birth register. The petitioner also produced horoscope and the statement of an astrologer in support of his case. The petitioner also produced a certificate granted by Indore municipality. The prosecution has also produced record of Central School, Indore wherein the date of birth was indicated as 15.2.67. The learned Sessions Judge by the impugned order held the petitioner to be above 16 years of age. While recording that finding, the learned Sessions Judge has discussed the oral evidence and the documents produced on behalf of the petitioner. He found interpolation/Overwriting in the birth register, in the name of mother of the child, sex of the child and time of delivery. It has also come in evidence that information regarding birth of a child is usually forwarded to the Municipality within two days. However, in the present case the birth of the· petitioner is alleged to have taken place on 10.5.68, and the information was sent to the Municipality on 19.9.84, i.e. after the date of occurrence. On the aforesaid premises, the learned trial Judge did not place any reliance either on the birth register or the certificate granted by the municipality. The learned Judge also considered horoscope and in that he found a lot of over writings. On the aforesaid premises, the learned trial Judge did not place any reliance either on the birth register or the certificate granted by the municipality. The learned Judge also considered horoscope and in that he found a lot of over writings. The author of the horoscope has stated in his evidence that horoscope was prepared on the basis of the statement made either by the petitioner's uncle or father. Horoscope was prepared in the year 1972. The learned trial Judge did not place any reliance on the horoscope also. The Prosecution as stated earlier has produced extract of admission register and also examined the Principal of Central School, Indore. The School register shows that the petitioner was admitted in June 1973 and 15.10.67 was recorded as the date of birth of the petitioner. At the time of admission of the petitioner in the Central School, a certificate granted by the Municipality was also produced and the same showed 15.10.67 as the date of birth of the petitioner. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge placed reliance on the documents and the evidence produced by the prosecution. In my opinion, the learned Add1. Sessions Judge has rightly rejected the documents produced on behalf of the petitioner for proving the petitioner's date of birth to be 10.5.68. There are over writings in the birth register. The hospital where the petitioner is alleged to have taken birth has forwarded the information about the birth of the petitioner after the date of occurrence, although in normal course it is sent within a couple of days. The prosecution, on the otherhand has produced admission register of the Central School showing the date of birth to be 15.10.67 and it has also come in evidence that the said date of birth was recorded on the basis of certificate granted by the municipality itself. I do not find any illegality committed by the Sessions Judge in appraisal of the evidence. In the result, this application has no merit and fit to he rejected. It is accordingly dismissed. Record of the lower Court he sent hack immediately.