Judgment M. A. A. KHAN, J. ( 1 ) HEARD. The applicant is the mother of the ravished girl Kr. Manisha, aged about 13-14 years. Kr. Manisha is alleged to have been raped by three persons namely Sanjeeve, Kishore and Vijay Pal, While Sanjeeve and Kishore were charge-sheeted before the Court of competent Magistrate. Vijay Pal was sent to the Children Court as he was alleged to be below 16 years of age at the time of commission of the offence. The applicant appears to have contested the age of Vijay Pal and in that behalf. She appears to have requested the Children Court to summon the age certificate from the institutions where Vijay Pal was alleged to have studied and also to get him medically examined for determination of his age by a Medical Board. The Children Court. However, declined to requisition the required certificate from the institutions and also to get Vijay Pal examined by a Board of Doctors for determining his age. The learned Children Court took the view that the age of Vijay Pal as recorded in the record of Board of Secondary Education Rajasthan, was conclusive proof. ( 2 ) IT was submitted by the learned Counsel for the applicant that since it was a case of heinous crime having been committed against an in-nocent girl by three youths and two of the culprits were facing their trial before the Regular Court, the third one who was also major at the time of commission of the offence must have been tried by a Regular Court and in order to determine his majority, the learned Trial Court must have conducted necessary enquiry as desired by the applicant into the actual age of the accused Vijay Pal. It was further submitted that the date of birth as recorded in the School Register may be having some evidential value but the entry as made in the School record, can never be the conclusive proof of that fact and evidence in rebuttal thereof may always baled by a person who alleged to the contrary. It was, therefore, submitted that looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it should be directed by this Court in exercise of its powers under Section 482. Cr. It was, therefore, submitted that looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it should be directed by this Court in exercise of its powers under Section 482. Cr. P. C. that the evidence which the appellant wants to bring on the record regarding age of Vijay Pal should be allowed to be taken on record of the case and that the learned Children Court should get the accused examined for determination of his age by a Board of Doctors. ( 3 ) THE learned Public Prosecutor was fair enough to state that where the date as stated by an accused and as stated by the other side, is disputed, the Court should be open to permit both the parties to adduce proper evidence on the point and the Court should of its own, also call for a report from the medical Experts in that behalf, learned Public Prosecutor further agreed in principle that in view of the gravity of the offence, such an inquiry is necessary so that the real culprits may not escape and go scot-free by taking shelter under the liberal provisions of the Children Act. ( 4 ) THE necessity of making a differential treatment to the Juvenile Offenders has been accepted in principle in Section 27 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Section 27 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, reads as under: 27 Any offerce not punishable with death or imprisonment for life, committed by any person who at the date when he appears or is brought before the Court is under the age of sixteen years, may be tried by the Court of a Chief Judicial Magistrate, or by any Court specially empowered under the Children Act, 1960, or any other law for the time being in force providing for the treatment, training and rehabilitation of youthful offenders. It is clear that for the excluded categories of offences mentioned in Section 27, any other offence committed by any other person who on the date when he appeared or is brought before the Court is under age of 16 years, may be tried by the Court of a Chief Judicial Magistrate or by any Court specially empowered under the Children Act, 1960. The Children Act. 1960 is applicable to the City of Jaipur. The Children Act. 1960 is applicable to the City of Jaipur. Section 2 (e) defines child as under: Child means a boy who has not attained the age of 16 years or a girl who has not attained the age of 18 years. Section 3 of the Act, 1960, contemplates an inquiry in respect to a child who had ceased to be a child. It means that Section 3 contemplates an inquiry into the age of child who is to be sent before the Children Court. Section 23 of the Act of 1960 excludes the operation of Chapter VIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure and says that notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, no proceeding shall be instituted and no order shall be passed against a child under Chapter VIII of the said Court. Section 24 bars the trial of a child with other major accused persons. The scheme of the Children Act, 1960 clearly conveys the message, that the Juvenile Offenders are not to be tried by the Children Court in the manner as other offenders are tried before the Regular Court. The trial, if that may be given the name to the proceedings before the Children Court, does not come to an end by or in awarding any sentence to the child but in case of their having been found guilty of an offence excluding those mentioned in Section 27 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, they are to be sent to reformatories like, Children Home Special Schools, Observations Homes etc. ( 5 ) LOOKING to the purpose and objects of the Children Act, it becomes essential that offenders of grave offences do not go unpunished, after taking shelter under the liberal and reformatory umbrella, provided by the Children Act, 1960. It is, therefore, necessary that whenever a question regarding the age of the Tchild is raised before the Children Court, a proper inquiry should be made and the actual age of the child should be determined particularly in cases involving commission of offence of grievous nature. ( 6 ) AS stated above, the entry of date of birth in the record of an institution may be having evidentiary value but such evidence is not always conclusive proof of the truth of the entry made therein. ( 6 ) AS stated above, the entry of date of birth in the record of an institution may be having evidentiary value but such evidence is not always conclusive proof of the truth of the entry made therein. The truthfulness of the entry regarding the date of birth is entered in the School Register, may be challenged and rebutted by producing other evidence to the contrary. The applicant was, therefore, fully justified in asking the, Children Court to permit her to lead other evidence regarding the age of the accused Vijay Pal. She was also justified in requesting the, Court to get the accused examined by a Medical Board. ( 7 ) IN view of the above, I am satisfied that the continuation of the order, as passed by the Magistrate, is likely to cause injustice in the present case and amounts to an abuse of the process of the Children Court mars and the way to the bringing of permissible evidence on the record of the case, the impugned order is, therefore, set aside and the Children Court is directed to call for the record regarding the age of Vijay Pal from those institutions wherein Vijay Pal had studied and whose record contained the entry of the date of his birth. The Children Court is further directed to send Vijay Pal for being examined by a Board of Doctors for ascertaining his clinical age. After taking into account the entire evidence, the Children Court shall form its opinion whether Vijay Pal was or was not a child as per definition given in Section 2 (e) of the Act of 1960, on the date of commission of offence in the present case. The criminal misc. application is allowed. Application Allowed.