Judgment 1. The present revision application is in terms of Section 53 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the "Juvenile Act") read with Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on behalf of Sachin Kumar Gupta @ Sachin Kumar who claims to be a juvenile in conflict with law and the petitioner. Opposite party. No. 2 is Smt. Shobha Kumari Gupta, the aunt of the petitioner and the informant on whose written statement, the case was registered under Sections 302/ 34, 120B of the Indian Penal Code and in which case having been committed to Court of Session for trial, petitioner has been in and out of judicial custody since 12.8.2004. 2. A First Information Report was registered at 9 am on 9.8.2004 on the written statement of the informant/opposite party No. 2 on 9.8.2004, inter alia, alleging that opposite party No. 2 had gone out of Patna on 8.8.2004 to appear in her viva voce test for her Doctorate degree and on her return, her husband was informed that he should go to the shop where Chief Secretary of Bihar had come and later she was told that her husband had gone to meet Chief Secretary whereupon he did not return till late in the night. It is alleged that the petitioner was then distributing sweets to the family members but the husband of opposite party No. 2 did not return in the night. Next morning, enquiries were made and ultimately the petitioner was asked by opposite party No. 2 to open the shop where the strangulated dead body of the hus-band of opposite party No. 2 was found. She claimed that her husband had been killed by his brothers and the petitioner who was her nephew. Police registered case under the aforesaid Sections and the petitioner was arrested on 12.8.2004. On being produced before the Court of CJM/ACJM who apparently found the petitioner to be prima facie minor, case of the petitioner was separated and was sent to the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Patna. The Juvenile Justice Board, by order dated 15.9.2004, requested the Civil Surgeon, Patna to medically examine the petitioner so as to ascertain his age. On being produced before the Court of CJM/ACJM who apparently found the petitioner to be prima facie minor, case of the petitioner was separated and was sent to the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Patna. The Juvenile Justice Board, by order dated 15.9.2004, requested the Civil Surgeon, Patna to medically examine the petitioner so as to ascertain his age. Several reminders were sent by the Juvenile Justice Board but then without waiting for the report, on 14.9.2005, the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Patna Miss Saroj Kumari, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna declared the petitioner to be a juvenile on the day when the offence is said to have been committed. In arriving at the said conclusion, the Juvenile Justice Board relied on the matriculation certificate issued by the Bihar School Examination Board, Patna in respect of the petitioner and the Admit Card for matriculation examination which show the date of birth of the petitioner as 15.12.1988, thus, holding that the petitioner was about sixteen and half years old on the date of occurrence that is 8.8.2004. She also noted the physical appearance of the petitioner that he had no beard and moustache. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, in view of the aforesaid, also conceded that the petitioner would be a juvenile under the Juvenile Act. I may also notice that though the enquiry was pending in regards the age of the petitioner for over a year, the informant was neither noticed nor chose to appear. 3. Once the said declaration was made by the Juvenile Justice Board apparently in terms of Section 52, an appeal was preferred by the informant to the Court of Session being Criminal Appeal No. 158 of 2005. The appeal was allowed and the matter was remanded to the Juvenile Justice Board for fresh consideration after hearing both the sides. From perusal of the appellate order, it appears that the learned Additional Sessions Judge XI, Patna dealt with the appeal and allowed it by his order dated 12.12.2005. He was persuaded to do so because it was brought to his notice that Juvenile Justice Board itself had called for a report from the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Patna but the Board, without waiting for the said medical report, passed an order on basis of the documents referred to above. The medical report, it may be mentioned, was ultimately received on 29.10.2005. The medical report, it may be mentioned, was ultimately received on 29.10.2005. The Court of Session held that the Juvenile Justice Board had not heard the informant and had declared the petitioner juvenile only on basis of the matriculation certificate, admit card and the physical features which was not proper. In his opinion. the Juvenile Justice Board should have waited for the report of the Medical Board and then considered the matter, thus the remand. 4. On remand to the Juvenile Justice Board, the matter was disposed of by order dated 22.2.2006 wherein this time the Board took the view that the Court of Session had already discarded the certificates and as the Medical Board, whose report had been made available gave a finding with regard to the age of peiitioner to be between 20-22 years as on 29.10.2005, he was above nineteen years on the alleged date of occurrence and that being so, the case was remitted back to the Court concerned for trial and disposal in accordance with law where other accused persons were being tried. 5. Being aggrieved by this, the petitioner filed Criminal Appeal No 92 of 2006 in the Court of Session which was dismissed by order dated 30.5.2006 by the Additional Sessions Judge-XII, Patna wherein again he held that the documentary evidence, in the shape of matriculation certificate and admit card having already been considered and rejected by the Court of Session on the earlier occasion, those could not be looked in. At this stage in the second round before the Court of Session, the informant appeared and filed certificate issued by St. Xaviers High School, Patna dated 23.9.2004 where the date of birth of the petitioner was shown to be 22.7.1987. He also noticed that in the regular bail application filed before the High Court by the petitioner, the same was rejected giving liberty to the petitioner to renew the prayer for bail after six months if no substantial progress in the trial had taken place. 6. At this point, I may notice the certificate aforesaid which has been brought on record. The said certificate issued by the St. 6. At this point, I may notice the certificate aforesaid which has been brought on record. The said certificate issued by the St. Xaviers High School, Patna annexes the form filled up on 22.11.1992 for admission to Class-I of the petitioner with his photograph as a child and the affidavit of the father of the petitioner with regard to the date of birth of the petitioner which was filed while seeking admission to the 1st Class of the school showing date of birth as 22nd July, 1987. Even as per this documentary evidence as filed by the informant, the petitioner was a minor and thus a juvenile. But, noticing the contradiction in the two dates one being the matriculation certificate granted by the Bihar School Examination Board and produced by the petitioner and those produced from the St. Xaviers High School, Patna by the informant herself, the petitioner was a juvenile yet the appellate Court discarded both and on basis of the report of the Medical Board alone and held petitioner to be not a juvenile. 7. Against this, a revision application in terms of Section 53 of the Juvenile Act was preferred before this Court being Criminal Revision No. 618 of 2006 which was disposed of by this Court by order dated 14.11.2006 and the matter was remanded to the Juvenile Justice Board for a fresh consideration on basis of all materials available on record as this Court found that at different stages different forums had relied on different evidences. 8. This time, on remand, the Juvenile Justice Board, Patna in Juvenile Justice Board Case No 71 of 2005 held the petitioner not to be juvenile by order dated 20.1.2007. Here, I may notice that on behalf of petitioner, it was urged that the true and correct date of birth of the petitioner was that as recorded and certified from the school first attended being St. Xaviers High School, Patna where the petitioner was admitted in Class-I and which was produced by the informant herself as apparently while filling up the Board examination form, the petitioner had reduced his age by over a year but nevertheless he was a juvenile on basis of either of the two documentary evidences. Xaviers High School, Patna where the petitioner was admitted in Class-I and which was produced by the informant herself as apparently while filling up the Board examination form, the petitioner had reduced his age by over a year but nevertheless he was a juvenile on basis of either of the two documentary evidences. This was taken by the Juvenile Justice Board a ground enough to doubt the very authenticity and the correctness of the age of the petitioner on basis of those certificates and, thus, he placed reliance on the Medical Boards report. While doing so, they appeared to have been persuaded by the physical appearance of the petitioner who was present before the Board at this time (on or about 20.1.2007 that is almost two and a half years after the date of occurrence) and they have noted that beard and moustache have been well developed on the said person. This order was unsuccessfully challenged in appeal before the Court of Session in Criminal Appeal No. 58 of 2007 which was disposed of by the Vlth Additional Sessions Judge, Patna on 15.5.2007. Hence, this revision application. 9. Smt. Anjana Prakash, learned Senior Advocate appeared on behalf of the petitioner and raised a short point for consideration of the Court in relation to the jurisdiction of the Juvenile Justice Board in respect of enquiry into the age of ac cused brought before it. She submitted that whatever may have been position earlier in law, after coming into force of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 and the Bihar Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules 2003 read with Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules 2007, the latter Rules being Rules made by the Central Government, there is a statutory procedure and Rule of evidence prescribed for such matters which are to be, inter alia, found in Section 49 of the Juvenile Act, Rule 22(5) of the Bihar Rules and Rule 12(3) of the Central Rules. In short, her submission is that where matriculation certificate or date of birth certificate from the school first attended or the birth certificate given by Corporation or Municipality is available then they would be conclusive proof of age as regards the juvenile in conflict with law and it is only in absence of either of the aforesaid three that medical opinion could be sought for and even in such a situation, a benefit has to be given on the lower side within margin of one year if considered necessary as the Medical Board is only an approximation and not exact. If this Rule is applied, as submitted by her, then on basis of the two conclusive proof documents produced by either party that is the petitioner and the informant, the petitioner had to be held and declared juvenile in conflict with law and the report of Medical Board could not be looked in much less called for. 10. In order to appreciate the said submission, it is necessary to refer to some provisions of the Act and the two sets of Rules which are quoted hereunder: The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 2 Definitions.In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires- (c) "Board" means a Juvenile Justice Board constituted under Section 4; (g) "competent authority" means in relation to children in need of care and protection a Committee and in relation to juveniles in conflict with law a Board; (k) "juvenile" or "child" means a person who has not completed eighteenth year of age; (l) "juvenile in conflict with law" means a juvenile who is alleged to have committed an offence and has not completed eighteenth year of age as on the date of commission of such offence; 7. Procedure to be followed by a Magistrate not empowered under the Act- (1) When any Magistrate not empowered to exercise the powers of a Board under this Act is of the opinion that a person brought before him under any of the provisions of this Act (other than for the purpose of giving evidence, is a juvenile or the child, he shall without any delay record such opinion and forward the juvenile or the child and the record of the proceeding to the competent authority having jurisdiction over the proceeding. (2) The competent authority to which the proceedings is forwarded under sub-section (1) shall hold the inquiry as if the juvenile or the child had originally been brought before it. [7-A. Procedure to be followed when claim of juvenility is raised before any Court. (1) Whenever a claim of juvenility is raised before any Court or a Court is of the opinion that an accused person was a juvenile on the date of commission of the offence, the Court shall make an inquiry, take such evidence as may be necessary (but not an affidavit) so as to determine the age of such person, and shall record a finding whether the person is a juvenile or a child or not, stating his age as nearly as may be: Provided that a claim of juvenility may be raised before any Court and it shall be recognized at any stage, even after final disposal of the case, and such claim shall be determined in terms of the provisions contained in this Act and the rules made thereunder, even if the juvenile has ceased to be so on or before the date of commencement of this Act. (2) If the Court finds a person to be a juvenile on the date of commission of the offence under sub-section (1), it shall forward the juvenile to the Board for passing appropriate order, and the sentence, if any, passed by a Court shall be deemed to have no effect.] (Inserted by the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Amendment Act, 2006 (33 of 2006), S 8 (w.e.f. 22.8.2006) 49. Presumption and determination of age. (1) Where it appears to a competent authority that person brought before it under any of the provisions of this Act (otherwise than for the purpose of giving evidence) is a juvenile or the child, the competent authority shall make due inquiry so as to the age of that person and for that purpose shall take such evidence as may be necessary (but not an affidavit) and shall record a finding whether the person is a juvenile or the child or not, stating his age as nearly as may be. (2) No order of a competent authority shall be deemed to have become invalid merely by any subsequent proof that the person in respect of whom the order has been made is not a juvenile or the child, and the age recorded by the competent authority to be the age of person so brought before it, shall for the purpose of this Act, be deemed to be the true age of that person. 54. Procedure in inquiries, appeals and revision proceedings. (1) Save as otherwise expressly provided by this Act, a competent authority while holding any inquiry under any of the provisions of this Act, shall follow such procedure as may be prescribed and subject thereto, shall follow, as far as may be, the procedure laid down in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), for trials in summons cases. (2) Save as otherwise expressly provided by or under this Act, the procedure to be followed in hearing appeals or revision proceedings under this Act shall be, as far as practicable, in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974). 68. Power to make Rules. (1) The State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, make Rules to carry out the purposes of this Act. [Provided that the Central Government may, frame model rules in respect of all or any of the matters with respect to which the State Government may make rules under this section, and where any such mode/rules have been framed in respect of any such matter, they shall apply to the State until the rules in respect of that matter is made by the State Government and while making any such rules, so far as is practicable, they conform to such model rules.] [Inserted by the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Amendment Act, 2006 (33 of 2006), S 26 (a) (w.e.f. 22.8.2006).] The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 12. Procedure to be followed in determination of age ... Procedure to be followed in determination of age ... (3) In every case concerning a child or juvenile in conflict with law, the age determination inquiry shall be conducted by the Court or the Board or, as the case may be, the Committee by seeking evidence by obtaining (a) (i) the matriculation or equivalent certificates, if available; and in the absence whereof; (ii) the date of birth certificate from the school (other than a play school) first attended; and in the absence whereof; (iii) the birth certificate .given by a corporation or a municipal authority or a panchayat; (b) and only in the absence of either (i), (ii) or (iii) of clause (a) above, the medical opinion will be sought from a duly constituted Medical Board, which will declare the age of the juvenile or child. In case exact assessment of the age cannot be done, the Court or the Board or, as the case may be, the Committee, for the reasons to be recorded by them, may, if considered necessary, give benefit to the child or juvenile by considering his/ her age on lower side within the margin of one year, and, while passing order in such case 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 and either of the evidence specified in any of the clauses (a) (i), (ii), (iii) or in the absence whereof, clause (b) shall be the conclusive proof of the age as regards such child or the juvenile in conflict with law. The Bihar Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2003. 22. Procedure to be followed by a Board in holding inquiries and the determination of age.......... The Bihar Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2003. 22. Procedure to be followed by a Board in holding inquiries and the determination of age.......... (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 attended; 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; and, when passing orders in such case 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. 11. First, a reference to Section 49(1) of the Act would show that the competent authority, which would be the Juvenile Justice Board in the present case, is to make an enquiry as to the age of the person by documentary evidence and record a finding in this regard. Sub-section (2) of Section 49 is material and puts an embargo on invalidity of the declaration as made, subsequently, even on proof that the person is not a juvenile or a child and a presumption is drawn as to declaration of juvenility. What is the evidence relevant for the purpose of determination of age is dealt by Rule 22 (5) of the Bihar Rules and in similar terms is Rule 12 (3) of the Central Rules. A reference to the said Rules would show that it is a rule of conclusive proof if Section 49 (2) of the Act is kept in mind. In my view, once either of the three documents that is matriculation certificate or date of birth certificate from the school first attended or the birth certificate granted by the Corporation or Municipality are produced, the genuineness whereof is not in dispute then the Court, the Board or the competent authority is left with no discretion in the matter and it cannot even call for report of Medical Board. A certificate of the nature mentioned above is genuine if if is issued by the authorities as designated in their regular course, in terms of Section 35 of the Evidence Act. There should not be fraudulent interpolations therein. They are held to be conclusive proof of the fact mentioned therein. Conclusive proof is defined by Section 4 of the Evidence Act to mean a fact which is declared to be conclusive proof of another. The Court shall on proof of one fact record the other as proved and shall not allow evidence to be given for the purpose of disapproving it. It is this last line which is impor tant and is also recognized by Section 49(2) of the Juvenile Act apart from the scheme of Rule 22 (5) of the Bihar Rules and the specific declaration in this regard as contained in Rule 12 (3) of the Central Rules. The effect is that on proof of the specified documents having been issued by the respective authorities mentioned therein the date of birth as mentioned in the documentary evidence is deemed to be proved conclusively and cannot be rebutted. In my view, this aspect of the matter was totally lost sight of by the Courts/authorities on earlier occasions while dealing with the issue. 12. As noticed earlier, on the very first occasion when the petitioner was produced for remand, the Magistrate found him to be a juvenile and, thus, a juvenile in conflict with law and separated his case and referred him to the Juvenile Justice Board. The Juvenile Justice Board at the first instance, though called for report of the Medical Board, but when confronted with certificate issued by the Bihar School Examination Board, clearly showing the petitioner to be juvenile declared him so. It has not been the case of the informant that this certificate was not genuine or not issued in due course by the authorities. It was not fraudulent or a forgery. Once the certificate was brought on record then no other proof could be led to disapprove it. It was conclusive proof of age of petitioner. It has not been the case of the informant that this certificate was not genuine or not issued in due course by the authorities. It was not fraudulent or a forgery. Once the certificate was brought on record then no other proof could be led to disapprove it. It was conclusive proof of age of petitioner. In the facts of the case, the only other evidence led by the informant was the certificate granted by the Principal of St Xaviers High School, Patna with regard to the date of birth of the petitioner as recorded therein being the recorded date with the school first attended being Class-I in this case. Both the certificates undisputedly establish that the petitioner was a juvenile in conflict with law when the offence is said to have been committed by a good margin of time. 13. Here, I may mention one of the reasons why apparently the Legislature have declared these documentary evidence to be conclusive proof of age. These documents are prepared and issued much before the offence is committed and it cannot be contemplated that a person seeking first admission to a school at the age of about 5 or 6 years would be fudging his date of birth with the intent of taking advantage at a much later date when he commits an offence. Similar is with regard to the other two documentary evidences. In short, they are documents which are not prepared keeping in mind an offence to be committed at a future date. They are documents prepared in regular course and it is because of this they are deemed to be conclusive proof of age. 14. In my view, as the informant herself has not challenged nor any one challenged the genuineness of the documents either produced by the petitioner or by the informant, that should have ended the matter. I may also mention that once on basis of the matriculation certificate as granted by Bihar School Examination Board a finding was recorded at the first instance by the Juvenile Justice Board then at a later stage in appeal leading any other proof to the contrary was clearly prohibited in terms of Section 49 (2) of the Juvenile Act. Admittedly, there was only one documentary evidence at the time when the Juvenile Justice Board first heard the matter and declared petitioner to be a juvenile in conflict with law. Admittedly, there was only one documentary evidence at the time when the Juvenile Justice Board first heard the matter and declared petitioner to be a juvenile in conflict with law. This documentary evidence was sufficient in terms of the Rules. All subsequent documents including the Medical Boards report had to be excluded from consideration, 15. Smt. Anjana Prakash, learned Senior Advocate also submitted that even if the report of the Medical Board was taken into account then on 29.10.2005, which is the date of medical report, the petitioners lower age was determined as 20 years which would make him less than 19 years on the date of occurrence which is 08.08.2004 and that would entitle him to benefit of one year margin as contemplated under the Rules which would then make him undisputedly below 18 years. Thus, on basis of all three evidences, the petitioner would be less than 18 years of age, thus; a juvenile in conflict with law. 16. In my view, the legislative wisdom is for care and protection of juvenile in conflict with law. The Legislature have declared person below the age of 18 years to be persons requiring special care as a juvenile for various reasons including their maturity and has provided for the procedure to ascertain the same and once the Legislature has spoken, it is not open for Judges to be wiser. 17. Here, I may usefully refer the case of Shri Mandir Sita Ramji Versus Government of Delhi and Others, AIR 1974 SC 1868 : "When a procedure is prescribed by the Legislature, it is not open for the Court to substitute a different one according to its notion of justice. When the Legislature has spoken, the Judges cannot afford to be wiser." 18. In fairness to the learned counsel for the informant-opposite party No 2, I must notice the case of Ravinder Singh Gorkhi V/s. State of UP, 2006 5 SCC 584 and in particular, paragraph-39 as relied on by him which is quoted hereunder: "We are, therefore, of the opinion that until the age of a person is required to be determined in a manner laid down under a statute, different standard of proof should not be adopted. It is no doubt true that the court must strike a balance. It is no doubt true that the court must strike a balance. In case of a dispute, the court may appreciate the evidence having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. It would be a duty of the court of law to accord the benefit to a juvenile, provided he is one. To give the same benefit to a person who in fact is not a juvenile may cause injustice to the victim. In this case, the appellant had never been serious in projecting his plea that he on the date of commission of the offence was a minor. He made such statement for the first time while he was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure." 19. In my view, if any thing the dictum contained in paragraph-39 reproduced above goes more in favour of the petitioner than against him. In the case before the Apex Court as noted in the paragraph above the appellant therein had never projected himself as a minor but in the present case, it is undisputed that at day one when the petitioner was produced for remand, he was prima facie adjudged a minor and his case was referred to Juvenile Justice Board immediately on his arrest and that is what the petitioner maintains right through. Moreover, their Lordships were not considering the specific statutory provisions in this regard. 20. Thus, on the finding above, I find that the orders impugned are wholly without jurisdiction and cannot be sustained. They are contrary to the provisions of the Act and the Rules. This Court has no option but to declare petitioner a juvenile in conflict with law on the basis of the legal evidence on record and all consequences, as prescribed under the Juvenile Act and the Rules framed thereunder, would accordingly follow and apply. 21. This revision application is allowed.