Hon ble SHARMA, J.—This criminal revision petition has been filed under Section 53 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2000 read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the Order dated 19th May, 2005 in enquiry proceeding No. 41/2004 passed by the Special Judge (NDPS Cases), Kota in FIR No. 3/2003 by which he has directed that the action against the accused would be taken under the Juvenile Justice Act and directed the accused (respondent) to present before the Juvenile Court on 27th May, 2005. (2). The brief facts of the case are that on 20th March, 2004 a complaint was lodged under Section 8 read with Section 18-B and 29 of NDPS Act against the accused persons namely Ashok Kumar, Jaswant Singh, Deep Chand and Srichand by (Dharam Singh Meena) Inspector of the Assistant Commissioner, Narcotics, Kota before the Court below. It was further stated in the complaint that out of these persons accused respondent-Ashok Kumar is minor. (3). Upon the said complaint, the learned Judge held an enquiry with regard to the age of the accused respondent-Ashok Kumar. The accused respondent in support of his case examined two witnesses AW-1 Bhan Singh, father, AW-2 Smt. Santosh, mother of the accused and also exhibited certain documents in his defence. Thereafter prosecution has also produced one witness CW-1 Dharam Singh Meena and documentary evidence as D-1 to D-3. (4). The petitioner aggrieved with the order dated 19th May, 2005 passed by the Court below by which the matter of the accused respondent was referred to Juvenile Court and the accused respondent was directed to appear before the Court of Juvenile Justice on 27.5.2005, the petitioner has preferred instant revision petition before this Court. (5). Mr. Laxman Madnanai, appearing on behalf of the petitioner has contended that the Court below has committed gross illegality and irregularity in passing the impugned order dated 19.5.2005. (6). The Court below has failed to appreciate this fact that as per instructions, the Investigating Officer-Dharam Singh Meena has inquired the matter regarding the age of the respondent and after inquiry he found that the name of accused respondent was appearing in the voter list of village Koir, Tehsil Nilokheri, District Karnal (Haryana). (7). (6). The Court below has failed to appreciate this fact that as per instructions, the Investigating Officer-Dharam Singh Meena has inquired the matter regarding the age of the respondent and after inquiry he found that the name of accused respondent was appearing in the voter list of village Koir, Tehsil Nilokheri, District Karnal (Haryana). (7). Court below has also failed to consider this fact that as per the birth certificate of the accused respondent issued by the Additional District Registrar (Birth/ Death) and Chief Health Officer under Section 17 of the Birth and Death Registration Act, 1969, the date of birth of the accused is 24th May, 1983. Trial Court has also failed to appreciate the statement of CW-1 Dharam Singh Meena and also not considered the documentary evidence of DW-1 and DW-3. The impugned judgment passed by trial Court dated 19.5.2005 is erroneous one and liable to be quashed and set aside. (8). In support of his case Mr. Laxman Madnani place reliance upon cases of Arun Kumar vs. State of Bihar, reported in (2008) 3 Supreme Court Cases 203 as also of Ravinder Singh Gorkhi vs. State of U.P., reported in 2006(2) Crimes 242 (SC). (9). Mr. Madnani has made a request to this Court that if this Court reaches to the conclusion that accused respondent Ashok Kumar is juvenile then his case may be tried after taking into consideration provisions of Section 6 of Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2000. (10). On the other hand, learned Advocate Mr. Ashvin Garg has contended that the trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence produced by the accused respondent as AW-1 Bhan Singh, who is father of the accused and AW-2 Smt. Santosh, who is mother of the accused and also exhibited documents were also exhibited. (11). According to him, for the purpose of determination of the birth, the evidence of parents is best one to a child because the mother gives the birth. (12). According to him in the instant case the mother is the best evidence which is sufficient to prove the birth of accused respondent because before birth she kept accused respondent for nine months in her womb. (12). According to him in the instant case the mother is the best evidence which is sufficient to prove the birth of accused respondent because before birth she kept accused respondent for nine months in her womb. Sub-clause (5) of Section 22 of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2000 is very much relevant for this purpose, which is reproduced hereunder:- "Section 22 (1)` (2) ` (5) In every case concerning a juvenile or a 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 attend; or (iii) matriculation or equivalent certificate, 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; one, when passing orders in such 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." (13). He also submitted a certificate of class -X before the trial Court which proves that the age of the accused respondent at the time of alleged incident was below 18 years. He also pointed out to the Court that the petitioner did not move any application regarding determination of the age of the accused respondent by which Medical Board can be constituted. (14). The certificate of class-X issued by the Secondary, Board of Education, Harayana and the character certificate which were issued by the concerning Principal of the School prove that the age of the accused respondent was below 18 years at the time of alleged incident. (15). Mr. Garg has also not opposed the request made by Mr. Madnani if the accused respondent is tried under the provision of section 6 of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2000. (16). For these reasons, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the order dated 19.5.2005 passed by the Special Judge, NDPS Cases-Additional District Judge No. 2, Kota. The revision petition is devoid of merits and stands rejected along-with stay application. (16). For these reasons, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the order dated 19.5.2005 passed by the Special Judge, NDPS Cases-Additional District Judge No. 2, Kota. The revision petition is devoid of merits and stands rejected along-with stay application. If the accused respondent Ashok Kumar is in judicial lock up or custody and moves an application for his release before concerned Court, then his application shall be decided by the Court concerned after taking into consideration the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2000.