JUDGMENT Khem Karan, J. - Heard Sri A.K. Pandey the learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned counsel for the Union of India. 2. This revision under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure react with Section 53 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act. 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 2000) is directed against order dated 25-9-2001, of Special Judge. Barabanki (Under N.D.P.S. Act 1985) by which he turned down the plea of the revisionist that he was a "Juvenile" within the meaning of the Act of 2000. 3. The revisionist was arrested on 3-7-2001, for committing alleged offences punishable under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (N.D.P.S Act). He moved a bail application taking the plea that he was a "Juvenile" as his date of birth was 27-8-1986. The Union of India took the plea that he was above 18. on the date of crime. Keeping the bail application pending this question was examined separately. In support of his plea the revisionist filed extract from school leaving register in which his date of birth was entered as 27-8-1986. His mother also filed affidavit to the same effect. The Union of India relied on the medical report of Chief Medical Officer to which his age was given as 19, extract from parivar register in which the year of his birth was shown as 1980. The Court also summoned the accused from jail and saw him from this angle. The learned Special Judge says on page 5 of the impugned order that by appearance he appeared to be 18. 4. Both the sides advanced arguments tried to support their respective submissions by referring to certain judicial pronouncements and the learned Special Judge took the view that entry about age made in pariwar register supported by the report of C.M.O. and the general appearance Out weighed the entry made in the School Leaving Certificate. He there­fore, concluded that the revisionist was above 18 of age on the date of crime. 5. The provisions contained in the Act of 2000 are in the shape of beneficial legislation and ought to be kept in mind while examining the question as to whether a particular person is entitled to the protection thereof. It would be useful to recall the recent observations of the Apex Court made in Rajinder Chandra v. State of Chhattisgarh and another1. It would be useful to recall the recent observations of the Apex Court made in Rajinder Chandra v. State of Chhattisgarh and another1. "It is true that the age of the accused is just on the border of sixteen years and on the date of the offence and his arrest he was less than 16 years by a few months only. In Amit Das v. State of Bihar, (2000) 5 SCC 488 . This Court has on a review of judicial opinion held that while dealing with question of determination of the age of the accused for the purpose of finding out whether he is a juvenile or not a hyper- technical approach should not be adopted while appreciating the evidence adduced on behalf of the accused in support of the plea that he was juvenile and if two views may be possible on the said evidence the court should lean in favour of holding the accused to be a juvenile in borderline case. The law so laid down by this Court squarely applies to the facts of the present case." 6. There are a number of decisions of this Court and the Apex Court (see Bhoop Ram v. State of U.P.2). Umesh Chandra v. State of Rajasthan3, Janardan Pandey v. State of U.P.4. Lalla Singh alias Ravindra Singh v. State of U.P.5 and Rajesh Maurya v. State of U.P.6 on the point that in case of variation, in between the medical evidence and the entries in the school register as regards the age the latter should be preferred. The learned Special Judge has accepted this legal position on page 5 of his order but has ignored the entries in the school register on the ground that entries in pariwar register and the general appearance, indicated otherwise. 7. What Sri Pandey, argues is that it was never the case of Union of India that extract from school leaving register was fake or fabricated. He says, the learned Special Judge also, did not doubt the genuineness of that paper. He argues that if the paper was genuine then there was no justification to ignore the same. He has also said entries in pariwar register cannot be preferred to the entries in the school register so far as the age was concerned. He says, the learned Special Judge also, did not doubt the genuineness of that paper. He argues that if the paper was genuine then there was no justification to ignore the same. He has also said entries in pariwar register cannot be preferred to the entries in the school register so far as the age was concerned. Sri Pandey goes on to argue that estimate of age made by the Court on physical observation cannot be sufficient enough to reject the entries about the date of birth in the school register. 8. The learned counsel for the Union of India, has said that the entries in school leaving register about the date of birth cannot be equated with the entries about the same made in High School Certificate or mark sheet. He says that the judicial pronouncements referred to by the learned counsel for the revisionist can be pressed into service only when such variation in age is found in between the High School certificate/mark-sheet and the medical evidence. He also argues that the learned Special Judge was perfectly justified, in preferring the age as mentioned in pariwar register. 9. This Court is of the view that the learned Special Judge, committed grave error by turning down the plea of the revisionist, that he was below 18 years of age on the date of the crime in question and his case should be dealt with under the Act of 2000. Once the genuineness of the extract from School Leaving Certificate is admitted or is not questioned. The only argument that can be advanced is that generally, parents/ guardians show lesser age of the pupils when they get them admitted in a school, so there will always be variation of 1 or 2 or 3 years, in between the age as entered in the school and the real one. It is hardly believable that parents/guardians, will be able to show lesser age by more than 3 years or so. According to the date of birth shown in the extract from school leaving regis­ter, the revisionist was below 15 years of age on the date of crime Le. 3-7-2001. Even if its, is assumed for the sake of arguments that lesser age was got entered in the school, it would hardly go beyond 18 as on 3-7-2001. According to the date of birth shown in the extract from school leaving regis­ter, the revisionist was below 15 years of age on the date of crime Le. 3-7-2001. Even if its, is assumed for the sake of arguments that lesser age was got entered in the school, it would hardly go beyond 18 as on 3-7-2001. The learned Special Judge missed to notice that the estimate of age as made by C.M.O. and by himself was bordering 18. Even the pariwar register, was not showing beyond 20-21 years. 10. The Court is of the view that more accuracy is expected in the case of entries in the school register, than those in the pariwar register or kutumb register. So, if the genuineness of the entries in the school register, is above board or if there is no acceptable material to doubt the same, there should normally be preferred to the entries in the pariwar register. In that case, even the medical evidence may not be sufficient to outweigh, those entries in the school register, relating to the date of birth. As regards the estimate about age based on the gen­eral appearance of the individual concerned, blind reliance may result in miscarriage of justice. Firstly, Such estimate may differ from Judge to Judge. Secondly, there is no safe and reliable basis to base it, for body structure or good or poor nourishment or health, may make a lot of difference. Thirdly, in this case, the learned Special Judge himself says on page 5, that he (revisionist) appeared to be more than 18. In this case a slight error, on the part of Special Judge, in estimating the age on the basis of general appearance, may deprive the revisionist, of getting the protection of Act of 2000. In such border line cases, benefit ought to be given to the alleged child. 11. So far the reasons stated above this court holds that the view taken by the learned Special Judge, as regards the age of the revisionist, is not sustainable in law or fact. He committed graye error in ignoring the entries, made in school leaving regis­ter and in basing his finding on entries in pariwar register, and on his own assessment, arrived at, on the basis of general appearance. 12. He committed graye error in ignoring the entries, made in school leaving regis­ter and in basing his finding on entries in pariwar register, and on his own assessment, arrived at, on the basis of general appearance. 12. This Court, therefore, allows the revision and quashes the impugned order dated 25-9-2001 of the learned Special Judge (under N.D.P.S. Act), District Barabanki. It is .found that the revisionist was below 18 years of age, on the date of the crime in question. It is directed that his case shall be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 2000. Revision allowed. 1. (2002) 2 S.C.C. 287 : 2002 (1) Crimes 279 (SC). 2. AIR 1989 SC 1329 . 3. (1982) 2 S.C.C. 2002. 4. 1997 JIC 100 (All). 5. 1998 Prayag Nirnaya Prakashika 568. 6. 2000 Prayag Nirnaya Prakashika (criminal).