JUDGMENT 1. :- Persuance to the notice issued earlier by this court, the. learned Public Prosecutor Mr. M.L. Goyal appears for the respondent State (N.P. No.1) and Shri Rakesh Bhargav appears for respondent No.2. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner Shri Rajnish Sapra on behalf of Shri S.S. Sunda Advocate. The learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently submitted that the learned Magistrate has committed a grave error in passing the impugned order dated 9.9.1996 whereby he held that the petitioner accused was above 16 years at the time of commission of the offence. The alleged incident in question took place on 10.4.1994. According to the petitioner at that time his age was below 16 years as he was born on 1.1.1979. However, the claim of the petitioner was opposed by the respondent on the ground that he was born on 24.6.1976 and not on 1.1.79. Thus, at the time of commission of offence he was above the age of 16 years. The petitioner was examined by the Doctor and according to him, his age was found 19-20 years. On the basis of this report of the Doctor as well as the admission form filled up at the time of getting admission in the Primary School, the learned Magistrate came to the condusion that his date of Birth is 24.6.1976 and he was above 16 years of age at the time of commission of offence. However, there is yet another admission form of the same Primary School wherein the birth date is shown as 1.1.1979. Unfortunately, the learned Magistrate while passing the impugned order did not consider the same. There is one more authentic proof by way of certificate from the Board of Secondary Education wherein the birth date of the petitioner is shown as 1.1.79. When there is conflict of evidence, ordinarily the School Leavinc Certificate issued from the Board has to be preferred by the court. The opinion of the Doctor is merely an expert opinion and it is held in number of cases that it is not perfect opinion about the age. It always varies 2, 3 years here or there. When Doctor examined the accused according to him, he was 19 or 20 years. If we give the benefit of 2, 3 years, then it can be said that he might be 15 or 16 years at the time of commission of offence. 3. It always varies 2, 3 years here or there. When Doctor examined the accused according to him, he was 19 or 20 years. If we give the benefit of 2, 3 years, then it can be said that he might be 15 or 16 years at the time of commission of offence. 3. Under the circumstances, the learned Judge has committed grave error in dismissing the application of the petitioner and holding that the petitioner accused were not below the age of 16 years at the time of commission of offence. There is ample evidence which shows that his correct date of birth was 1.1.1979. Therefore, at the time of commission of offence i.e. on 10.4.1994, he was obviously below the age of 16 yeas. Therefore, it must be held that the petitioner accused was a juvenile offender. 4. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 9.9.96 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alwar (Principal Magistrate Juvenile Court, Alwar) is hereby quashed and set-aside. The learned trial court is directed to proceed with the case in accordance with law, considering the accused petitioner as a juvenile offender.Petition allowed. *******