ORDER 1. The question involved in this petition is whether Respondent 2 is a juvenile within the meaning of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. Respondent 2 is accused of offence under Sections 302 and 376 IPC. The incident, according to the prosecution, took place on 23-21999 when he committed rape on a minor girl and, thereafter, murdered her by putting a scarf around her neck and throttling her. The petitioner is the mother of the victim, the minor girl. The accused, as per the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanpur Dehat, dated 1-6-1999, was held not to be a juvenile. However, in appeal, the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kanpur Dehat, by order dated 12-7-1999, held the accused-Respondent 2 a juvenile. The said order was upheld by the High Court by the impugned order dated 13-4-2001. The impugned order records the date of birth of Respondent 2 as 2-7-1985 on the basis of documentary evidence and statements of the Principal and the accuseds brother and mother. The documentary evidence is primarily in the shape of a school certificate issued by Higher Secondary School, Pasikhera, Japad, Kanpur Nagar. The said certificate is in respect of one Deepak Kumar, s/o Shri Kalicharan. The date of birth as per the said certificate is 2-7-1985. The accused claims that his name is Veer Singh @ Bauwa Yadav @ Deepak Kumar. 2. The petitioner has, however, placed on record a school certificate in respect of Beer Singh, s/o Kalicharan, according to which, the date of birth is 3-5-1978. The certificate purports to have been issued by Shri Ramkrishan Junior High School, Bawan, Kanpur Nagar. No affidavit has been filed by Respondent 2. According to the petitioner, a fraud was committed on court by filing a certificate showing date of birth as 2-7-1985 which does not pertain to Respondent 2 . 3. The certificate purports to have been issued by Shri Ramkrishan Junior High School, Bawan, Kanpur Nagar. No affidavit has been filed by Respondent 2. According to the petitioner, a fraud was committed on court by filing a certificate showing date of birth as 2-7-1985 which does not pertain to Respondent 2 . 3. Having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and the subsequent facts, as aforesaid, brought on record by the mother of the victim, in particular, the aforesaid certificate showing the date of birth as 3-51978 which, if it pertains to Respondent 2, would show that he was not a juvenile, we are of the opinion that the matter, as to the age of Respondent 2, deserves to be thoroughly examined afresh by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanpur Dehat, without being influenced by any observations and findings in regard to the age of Respondent 2 in any of the orders passed either by the Court of Session or by the High Court. It would be open to the Chief Judicial Magistrate to examine such oral and documentary evidence as may be necessary to correctly arrive at the age of Respondent 2. It goes without saying that the parties would be afforded reasonable opportunity by the learned Magistrate. 4. The matter shall be examined expeditiously. We direct that after the examination of the relevant oral and documentary evidence and after hearing the counsel for the parties, the Magistrate shall send his report to this Court within a period of three months. 5. List the petition after the receipt of the said report. Court Masters