JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition has been filed on behalf of the accused-Raju Ram @ Rajendra Kumar S/o Shri Bhanwarlal Jat against an order passed by the learned Special Judge, NDPS Cases, Jodhpur on 27.3.2002. 2. As per the prosecution story the co-accused-Om Prakash @ Ram Dayal and the petitioner were arrested on 25.9.2000 by SHO, Police Station, Kerala on the allegation that opium weighing 7 Kg 600 gms. was found in the possession of the accused persons. The age in the arrest memo was recorded as 19 years whereas according to the petitioner he was aged only 15 years and hence was a minor child and a juvenile offender and could not be tried by the learned Special Judge, NDPS Cases, Jodhpur. Witnesses Roop Narayan, Dr. A.L. Chauhan, Dr. V.K. Malhotra, Smt. Modi and Bhanwarlal were examined by the learned Court to ascertain the age of the petitioner. 3. R,oop Narayan is the principal of the Government Higher Secondary School, Salwakalan where the petitioner was a student. The witness came with the original admission register and deposed on its basis that the recorded date of birth of the accused in the school register was 25.6.1985. The witness stated that on a query by the SHO Police Station the certificate of age Ex. 1 was issued by him. 4. Dr. A.L. Chauhan, the Assistant Professor, X-ray in M.G. Hospital, Jodhpur has stated that the petitioner - Raju Ram was X-ray on 10.10.2000 under his supervision and the X-ray plates Ex. 4 & 5 were prepared. The witness opined that the estimated age of Raju Ram was 17-18 years and a certificate Ex. 3 to that effect was issued by him. In cross-examination the witness admitted that further 2 years variation was possible in the age recorded in the Report Ex. 3. 5. Dr. V.K. Malhotra, the Medical Jurist has deposed that the petitioner was examined by him to ascertain his age and as per his report Ex. 6 he found the age of the petitioner around 17 years. The witness further stated in his examination-in-chief that variation of 1 year was possible in his estimation. 6. Smt. Modi is the mother of the petitioner. 6 he found the age of the petitioner around 17 years. The witness further stated in his examination-in-chief that variation of 1 year was possible in his estimation. 6. Smt. Modi is the mother of the petitioner. She was examined on 29.10.2001 and deposed that although being illiterate the exact date of birth of the petitioner is not known to her, however the witness stated that the age was about 16-17 years on 29.10.2001. 7. Bhanwarlal is the father of the petitioner, has deposed that his marriage took place in the `Samwat' year 2039 and about 2 years thereafter the petitioner was born some time in the month of "ASHAD" in the Samwat year 2041. The witness has produced the `Janampatri' Ex. 7 which, according to him, was prepared by Pandit Basti Ram. 8. The learned Court then heard the arguments and found that no reliance could be placed on the school certificate and the testimony of the Principal Roop Narayan. The Court was of the view that neither the mother nor the father was able to depose about the exact date of birth and hence the evidence being not up to the mark the application moved by the petitioner for treating him as a Juvenile Offenders was dismissed. 9. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor for the State. The learned Public Prosecutor has supported the conclusions drawn by the learned lower Court and has argued that the `Janampatri' could be a good proof but the same has not been proved as per the provisions of the Evidence Act. According to the learned Public Prosecutor the maker of the Janampatri Ex. 7. Pandit Basti Ram has not been examined and Bhanwar Lal has simply tendered it in evidence and thus the `Janampatri' stands unproved. According to the learned Public Prosecutor the Court did not rely upon the school record and in that view of the matter and in view of the medical evidence there was no option but to reject the application. 10. After hearing the two sides I am of the view that it is difficult to sustain the impugned order passed on 27.3.2002. 10. After hearing the two sides I am of the view that it is difficult to sustain the impugned order passed on 27.3.2002. In my opinion there was nothing wrong with the testimony of the school Principal Roop Narayan who came with the original record of the school and on its basis deposed that the recorded date of proof of the petitioner was 25.6.1985. The offence allegedly took place on 25.9.2000. Thus, the age of the petitioner on the date of the alleged offence was 15 years and 3 months. Roop Narayan the Principal has stated that earlier the petitioner was a student of some other school and the date of proof was entered in the school record on the basis of the transfer certificate which was received from the previous school. The learned trial Court has opined that since the record of the earlier school was not produced the testimony of Roop Narayan was of no consequence. I am afraid that was not the right approach. The school record was old one and it cannot be argued that it was got prepared or was fabricated to serve the petitioner in this case. There was no reason to believe that in the transfer certificate which came from the earlier school the recorded date of birth was not 25.6.1985. 11. So far as the testimony of the two doctors is concerned. Dr. A.L. Chauhan has stated that he found the petitioner aged somewhere 17-18 years. The doctor has specifically admitted that further there was scope of variation of 2 years in his said estimation. Needless to say in view of this testimony it is possible that the age could be less than 16 years on the date of the alleged occurrence. Dr. V.K. Malhotra has given an opinion that estimated age was 17 years and there could be a variation of 1 more year in this estimation. Thus, it was possible that the accused could be aged less than 16 years on 25.9.2000. No doubt the Pandit who allegedly prepared the `Janampatri' has not been examined but in view of the evidence recorded in this case, even without the help of the Janampatri the application of the petitioner ought to have been allowed. 12. A similar question arose before the Apex Court in the case of Bhoop Ram v. State of U.P., 1989 SCC (Cr.) 486 . 12. A similar question arose before the Apex Court in the case of Bhoop Ram v. State of U.P., 1989 SCC (Cr.) 486 . In that case the accused was a child as per the age given in the school certificate. From the medical examination, it was found that the accused could be more than 18 years on the date of the occurrence. The Hon'ble Supreme Court decided the matter in favour of the accused and it was held that in case there is a conflict between the medical evidence and the entry in the school certificate the latter shall prevail unless, the same was not believable. 13. In the instant case, there is no material, on the basis of which, it can be said that the date recorded in the school certificate is not the real date of birth. 14. Consequently, in view of the discussion made above and in view of the law laid down in Bhoop Ram's case (supra), the revision petition deserves to be allowed. 15. The revision petition is, therefore, allowed and the impugned order dated 27.3.2002 is set-aside. The application of the petitioner moved in the trial Court for treating him a juvenile offender is allowed. The case of the petitioner requires to be put before the juvenile Court. The learned trial Court is directed to take steps in that direction.Revision petition allowed. *******