JUDGMENT Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. By way of this revision under Section 53 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of the Children) Act, 2000 read with Sections 397, 401 of Cr.P.C., the revisionist has challenged the order dated 10.09.2007 passed by Session Judge, Udham Singh Nagar in Misc. Appeal No. 36 of 2007 by which the order dated 01.09.2007 passed by Juvenile Justice Board was confirmed. 2. Brief facts of the case are that an incident under Section 18/20 of N.D.P.S. Act is alleged to have taken place on 10.07.2007. The allegations against the applicant / revisionist was that he was in possession of the narcotics substance on that day. The revisionist during the course of the trial claimed himself to be the Juvenile and the Juvenile Justice Board rejected the application of the revisionist considering him to be major. 3. The applicant filed the appeal and the appellate court also confirmed the order passed by the Juvenile Justice Board/Chief Judicial Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar. 4. Heard Sri S.K. Mandal, learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. and perused the record. 5. It appears to me that the Juvenile Justice Board while holding the enquiry in order to determine the age of the accused has not followed the procedure envisaged under Rule 22 of the Uttaranchal Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2002. 6. Rule 22 sub-rule 5 of the aforesaid rule reads as follows:- “(5) In every case concerning a juvenile or child, the Board shall either obtain:- (i) A birth certificate given by a corporation or a Municipal Authority, or (ii) a date of birth certificate from the school first attended, or (iii) matriculation or equivalent certificates, if available and (iv) in the absence of (i) to (iii) above, the medical opinion by a duly constituted Medical Board, subject to a margin of one year, in deserving cases for the reasons to be recorded by such Medical Board, regarding his age, and when passing orders in such cases shall, after taking into consideration such evidence as may be available or the medical opinion, as the case may be, record a finding in respect of his age.” 7. In view of the aforesaid rules, Juvenile Justice Board before declaring the accused, as the Juvenile have to follow the procedure envisaged therein and from perusal of the order passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, it appears to me that the same procedure has not been followed in the instant case. 8. For the reasons stated above, I allow the revision and set aside both the impugned orders dated 10.09.2007 and 01.09.2007 passed by the Session Judge, Udham Singh Nagar as well as Juvenile Justice Board respectively. 9. The Juvenile Justice Board is directed to determine the age of the applicant / revisionist in view of the provisions laid down in Rule 22 of the Uttaranchal Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2002.