JUDGMENT M. R. Verma, J. (Oral): It is the judgment dated November 9,1998 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nalagrah whereby the accused/respondents (here-after referred to as the accused) have been discharged in a complaint case under sections 323/342/504/506/218/219 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code, which is under challenge in this petition. 2. The case of the complainant/petitioner (here-after referred to as the complainant), in brief, is that she and her mother were arrested by accused Om Parkash (since deceased) and Chain Singh, both police officials, in connivance with the other accused persons for having kidnapped a child Sachin from the custody of accused Prem Dutt. The grievance of the complainant is that at the time of arrest, i.e. on June 29, 1988 at 6.00 p.m. at village Nangal Nihala, she was 17 years of age but inspite of being juvenile she was dealt with as an accused of more than 18 years of age and to do so, the investigation records were fabricated and her submissions that she was below 17 years of age were not taken into account and she was, thus, arrested and beaten up and was illegally confined. 3. To disclose that a prima facie case to frame a charge against the accused persons is made out, the complainant examined PW-1 Shrawan Dass, PW-2 Shanti Swaroop in addition to her own statement as PW-3. The learned trial Magistrate, after thoroughly examining the material brought on record, came to the conclusion that the pre-charge evidence produced by the complainant even if unrebutted, is not sufficient to base conviction of the accused persons for any of the offence alleged to have been committed by them, hence they were discharged. Feeling aggrieved by the order of discharge, the complainant has preferred the present revision petition. 4. Be it stated at the very outset that there is no cogent and reliable evidence on record which may prima facie be believed at this stage to show that before arrest of the complainant, she or some-one else on her behalf had intimated accused Om Parkash and Chain Singh that she was below 17 years of age. It cannot be disputed that the school leaving certificate is one of the best evidence about the age of a person and has to be accepted as prima facie proof of the age. It cannot be disputed that the school leaving certificate is one of the best evidence about the age of a person and has to be accepted as prima facie proof of the age. It is admitted by the complainant that at the relevant time she was in possession of her school leaving certificate. However, it is further admitted by her that she did not produce the certificate to the police as a proof of her age. It is admitted by PW-2 Shanti Swaroop also that he was approached by Prince Mohan for help in the matter of arrest of complainant and her mother but even he had not disclosed to him the age of the complainant. He has further admitted that when the accused persons including him were produced in the Court, it was not disclosed to the Court that the complainant was less than 18 years of age. At the relevant time, he was appointed as Assistant Public Prosecutor, therefore, had he been satisfied that at the time of arrest the complainant was below 18 years of age and the police had wrongly recorded her age in the records, he would have disclosed it in the Court. He claims that he has been himself wrongly arrested by the police but he has not taken any lawful action against the alleged illegal arrest. 5. The complainant herself has admitted that the case was presented before the Court at Una on-June 30, 1988 when a counsel appeared for their bail. At that time she had signed the power of attorney and also the Jamanat-nama. The objection about her age was not raised in the Court and she herself signed the bond as if she was a major. Had it been disclosed by her that she was minor, that is to say less than 18 years of age, the bond could not have been executed by her. At one stage she has stated that on June 30, 1988 her counsel had informed the Court that she was 17 years of age but she herself had admitted that it was not disclosed to the Court at that time that she was only 17 years of age. At one stage she has stated that on June 30, 1988 her counsel had informed the Court that she was 17 years of age but she herself had admitted that it was not disclosed to the Court at that time that she was only 17 years of age. The charge-sheet was, admittedly, presented against her on June 24,1989 and for the next three years the objection about her being juvenile was not taken in the Court, therefore, the conduct of the complainant in not objecting about her age at the time when she was produced in the Court on June 30, 1988 and subsequently when she attended the Court on various dates for a period of about three years it was not brought to the notice of the Court that at the relevant time she was 17 years of age, belies the version that before her arrest the accused Om Parkash and Chain Singh was informed of her being a juvenile. 6. Thus, what can be conveniently concluded even at this stage on the basis of the material on record is that the fact that at the time of her arrest the complainant was 17 years of age was neither brought to the notice of the concerned police officials nor it was brought to the notice of the concerned Court. It was in the year 1992, i.e. after four years of her arrest, that an application was moved in the Court that at the time of commission of the offence the complainant was only 17 years of age, hence a juvenile. 7. To constitute an offence under Section 218 of the Indian Penal Code, it has to be shown that the record or writing was incorrectly framed by the accused with the knowledge that it was incorrect and with the intention to cause and knowing it that it was likely to cause loss or injury to any person. Therefore, unless the requisite knowledge and intention can be gathered from the facts and circumstances of a case, the concerned public servant cannot be said even prima facie to have committed an offence punishable under Section 218 of the Indian Penal Code. 8. Therefore, unless the requisite knowledge and intention can be gathered from the facts and circumstances of a case, the concerned public servant cannot be said even prima facie to have committed an offence punishable under Section 218 of the Indian Penal Code. 8. To constitute an offence under Section 219 of the Indian Penal Code it has to be proved that the public servant corruptly and maliciously made a report contrary to the law, hence the necessary ingredients are the "corrupt and malicious act" on the part of the public servant. 9. To constitute an offence under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code there is no evidence what-so-ever in this case. Had it been a case of causing hurt to the complainant, one of whose co-accused was an Assistant Public Prosecutor and who was duly represented by a counsel when produced before the Magistrate for remand, could have complained about such beating and could get herself medically examined which has not been done. 10. To constitute an offence under Section 342 of the Indian Penal Code, the confinement must be wrongful. Once a person is accused of commission of a cognizable and non-bailable offence irrespective of his juvenile or major, he will be apprehended by the police for the purpose of investigation though in the case of juvenile certain requirements under law will have to be complied with to ensure that somebody takes custody of the juvenile and if none comes forward, he is kept in appropriate custody in accordance with law. In the instant case, the confinement after arrest of the complainant could be termed as "unlawful" only if it is the establishment that they knew that at the time of arrest the complainant was below 18 years of age. 11. To constitute an offence under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code, intentional insult to a person with intent to provoke him intending or knowing any other offence has to be established. These ingredients are not made in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 12. 11. To constitute an offence under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code, intentional insult to a person with intent to provoke him intending or knowing any other offence has to be established. These ingredients are not made in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 12. To constitute an offence under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code, there must be a threat of injury to the person, reputation or property of a person or to a person in whom he is interested with the intention to cause alarm to such person or to cause such person to do any act which he is not bound to do or to omit to do any act which he is legally entitled to do. These ingredients are also not made out in view of the pre-charge evidence as brought on record by the complainant. 13. As already stated here-in-above, the conduct of the complainant herself and the fact that this complaint had been filed after about seven years of the occurrence, reveal that at the time of the arrest of the complainant in the year 1988 till the year 1992 neither the police officials nor the Court concerned were informed of the complainant about her being a juvenile. Thus, the requisite intention, knowledge, corrupt or malicious motive are not made 5 out in this case nor can be inferred. 14. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any merit in this revision petition which is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed