ORDER :- The question is whether on the day of the alleged incident which is 29th of July, 2006 the petitioner was major or minor. In the event of his being a minor on that date the case as against him would fall for enquiry by the Juvenile Justice Board under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2000. In CRR No. 3760 of 2006 decided oh 8-3-2007 Hon'ble Justice P. N. Sinha (as His Lordship then was) directed the learned Magistrate to hold an enquiry for ascertainment of the age of the accused on the date on the incident. But because of insufficiency of sufficient material, more particularly because of the entry in the Registration Certificate Issued by the Board of Secondary Education. West Bengal, in the Pass Certificate of the Madhyamik Examination issued by the Board of Secondary Education. West Bengal containing in both of them the date of birth and in the Certificate of Birth issued by the Registrar of Birth and Death, Bamongola Block, Malda allegedly being rootless the learned Judicial Magistrate of Malda preferred to go by the report of the Ossification Test conducted by a medical officer on 15-9-2006 according to which on the date of the radiological examination the age of the boy would be at least 20 years plus two or 20 years minus two. Thus, according to the learned Magistrate the accused was major on the date of the commission of the incident. 2. I have heard the learned advocates for the parties, have perused the medical examination report and the certificate of birth issued by the Registrar of Birth and Death, Registration Certificate and Pass Certificate issued by the Board of Secondary Education, West Bengal vis-a-vis the order impugned. It is not that the evidence of the accused's parents who were examined by the learned Magistrate was inconsistent with the Birth Certificate issued by the Registrar of Birth and Death, or the Registration Certificate and Pass Certificate of Madhyamik Examination issued by the Board of Secondary Education. It is not that the date of birth recorded in the Certificate of Birth issued by the Registrar of Birth and Death is again inconsistent with the entry of date of birth in the Registration Certificate and the Pass Certificate of the Madhyamik Examination issued by the Board of Secondary Education. It is not that the date of birth recorded in the Certificate of Birth issued by the Registrar of Birth and Death is again inconsistent with the entry of date of birth in the Registration Certificate and the Pass Certificate of the Madhyamik Examination issued by the Board of Secondary Education. And, if the evidence of the parents, the Certificate of Birth and Death, the Registration Certificate and the Pass Certificate of Madhyamik Examination by the Board of Secondary Education, West Bengal are harmoniously constructed then obviously they would point to the fact of the minority of the accused on the date of the incident. It is common knowledge that the report of radiological examination can hardly provide an accurate clue to the date of birth of a person. When the doctor says that on the date of the examination the accused might be 20 plus two or 20 minus two then such a report can hardly help the Court to ascertain the age of the accused. When it is said that the accused was 20 plus 2 or 20 minus 2 at the date of examination of the accused then there develops a world of difference between the two. For if the accused is said to be 20 plus two then obviously he was major on the day of examination as also on the date of incident. On the other hand if he is 20 minus two on the day of examination then he would be around 18 on the date of examination which is 15-9-2006 and below 18 on the date of the incident. If he is below 18 on the date of the ncident, considering that he is taken to be 20 minus two, on the date of medical examination then obviously he is triable by the Juvenile Justice Board. Now the learned Magistrate examined some eight witnesses but the crux of the matter is the question of authenticity of the entry of date of birth i.e. 17-5-1989 - the date mentioned in the Pass Certificate as also the Registration Certificate issued by the Board of Secondary Education, West Bengal -in the Certificate of Birth issued by the Registrar of Birth and Death. The Certificate of Birth which was produced before the learned Magistrate shows that it was issued on 29th of March, 1993 by the Registrar of Birth and Death. The Certificate of Birth which was produced before the learned Magistrate shows that it was issued on 29th of March, 1993 by the Registrar of Birth and Death. As per the Certificate of Birth the date of registration was 31-5-1991. In order to ascertain whether the date entered into the Certificate of Birth issued by the Registrar of Birth and Death was a correct one or not the original registration volume was called for by the learned Magistrate. Now in the Certificate of Birth the registration No. was said to be 910 and accordingly the volume containing the entry No. 910 was called for but that page containing registration No. 910 related to entry of a date of birth of a different person. Therefore, learned Magistrate held that there is no genuineness of the Certificate of Birth as it does not tally with the volume containing the entry No. 910 and thus the learned CJM was of the opinion that such Certificate of Birth should not be relied upon and accordingly it was safer to go by the report of the Ossification Test which can be interpreted either in favour of the accused or in favour of the prosecution and the learned Magistrate in the instant case interpreted in favour of the prosecution and against the accused. Thus, inconsistency between the volume containing entry No. 910 in the Registration Book and the Certificate of Birth is the root cause of the problem. It has been argued by the learned Advocates for the petitioner that when occurrence took place on 29-7-2006 either the accused was major or minor and it could not be disputed that he was born about two decades ago or more than one decade ago. The accused passed the Madhyamik Examination held in the year of 2006 and in the Madhyamik Certificate the date of birth was recorded as 17-5-1989 and in the Registration Certificate which was issued on 14-9-2005 the date of birth was recorded as 17-5-1989. When the Certificate of Birth was issued on 29-3-1993 it cannot be argued that the parents could foresee that their son would commit a murder in 2006 and accordingly became wise to mention fictitious date before the Registrar of Birth and Death. Definitely, the argument is not without force. 3. When the Certificate of Birth was issued on 29-3-1993 it cannot be argued that the parents could foresee that their son would commit a murder in 2006 and accordingly became wise to mention fictitious date before the Registrar of Birth and Death. Definitely, the argument is not without force. 3. Now when in the Registration Certificate and the Pass Certificate of the Madhyamik Examination the date 17th May, 1989 was put there must have been some basis and according to the defence that basis is the entry of the date of birth in the Certificate of Birth issued by the Registrar of Birth and Death of the Government of West Bengal. If the Certificate of Birth is just considered to be fictitious or the Certificate of Birth is totally decided to be discarded then some more reasonings are necessary beyond the reasoning that the registration No. 910 as noted in the Certificate of Birth does not tally with the registration book containing serial No. 910. If it is reason which has not been reasoned by the learned Magistrate that the certificate of birth itself is fictitious and is without any basis then it is one thing. It is not the same thing as simply saying that the entry No. 910 in the register does not correspond to Certificate of Birth. This is a Government document issued by an officer statutorily authorized to issue such certificate. To my mind it is not impossible that mistake may occur in putting the entry number in the Government record. 4. It is the settled law that as between the School Certificate issued by the Board of Secondary Education, West Bengal and the report of Radiological Examination it is the former that should prevail because the age ascertained on medical examination is not necessarily the exact age of a person. It is not the finding of the learned Magistrate that the Certificate of Birth issued by the Registrar of Birth and Death, Government of West Bengal is a forged or fictitious one. That the Certificate of Birth was issued by the statutory authority relating to the date of birth of the petitioner is not in question. And that Certificate was issued on 29-3-1993 when unquestionably there could be no foreseeing that the petitioner would be implicated in the case in 2006. That the Certificate of Birth was issued by the statutory authority relating to the date of birth of the petitioner is not in question. And that Certificate was issued on 29-3-1993 when unquestionably there could be no foreseeing that the petitioner would be implicated in the case in 2006. The matter of the fact is that the date of birth as recorded in the Certificate of Birth has been consistent with the Registration Certificate and the Pass Certificate of the Madhyamik Examination issued by the Board of Secondary Education. The Registration Certificate issued by the Board of Secondary Education, West Bengal was issued on 14-9-2005 when unquestionably again there could be no foreseeing that the petitioner would be an accused in a cognizable offence relating to an incident on 29-7-2006. There must have been an Information of the date of birth of the petitioner on the basis of which the Registration Certificate was Issued wherein the date of birth was put as 17-5-1989. It could not be argued that the Certificate of Birth was procured after the incident took place on 29-7-2006. Therefore, merely because of the fact that the registration serial number as put in the Certificate of Birth did not tally with the Registrar it cannot be said that the Certificate of Birth has lost its force. If it had been found out by the learned Magistrate that the Certificate of Birth is a forged document then the position as I have said above would have been on a different footing but that was not the reasoning of the learned Magistrate. It was not a finding of the learned Magistrate that the Certificate of Birth was a forged document. No evidence was adduced by the concerned Official of the Registrar of Birth and Death, that no such Certificate of Birth was at all issued on 29-3-1993. If that were the evidence then the learned Magistrate surely would have been justified to discard the Certificate of Birth. The petitioner could not be faulted because of the entry in the volume not tallying with the Certificate of Birth issued by the Office of the Registrar of Birth and Death. If that were the evidence then the learned Magistrate surely would have been justified to discard the Certificate of Birth. The petitioner could not be faulted because of the entry in the volume not tallying with the Certificate of Birth issued by the Office of the Registrar of Birth and Death. Arguing for the extreme that no reliance can be put on the Certificate of Birth the matter of the fact that would remain unassailable is that the same date of birth as was put in the Certificate of Birth was noted in the Registration Certificate as also in the Final School Leaving Certificate issued by the statutory authority and it cannot be said that the date of birth as has been entered in those two certificates issued by the statutory authority should not be relied on. Secondly, it is very dangerous to go by the report of Radiological Examination because the report says that on the date of the examination which was 15-9-2007 the petitioner might be 20 plus 2 years or 20 minus 2 years. If he is 20 plus 2 years then obviously, as I said earlier the petitioner was major on the date of the incident. But if he is considered to be 20 minus 2 years then on the date of the incident he would be a minor one and that age would be quite consistent with the date entered in the Certificate of Birth or in the Registration Certificate and Final School Leaving Certificate. It cannot be contradicted that the age ascertained on Radiological Examination can never be the exact age and margin of 2 to 3 years is there in either side and in such circumstances School Leaving Certificate issued by a statutory body has to be relied on. Furthermore, if the finding of the Radiological Examination can be interpreted either in favour of the prosecution or in favour of the accused then that finding has to be adopted which is in favour of the accused. Considering these facts and circumstances, I am of the judgment that the learned Magistrate was not legally justified in discarding the Registration Certificate and the Final School Leaving Certificate and in relying on the Radiological Examination report which is not at all a conclusive one, the same being leaving margin of 2 years in either side. 5. Considering these facts and circumstances, I am of the judgment that the learned Magistrate was not legally justified in discarding the Registration Certificate and the Final School Leaving Certificate and in relying on the Radiological Examination report which is not at all a conclusive one, the same being leaving margin of 2 years in either side. 5. Accordingly, this has to be held that on the basis of the oral and documentary evidence and in absence of any further evidence it has to be held that the petitioner was below 18 years of age on the date of the incident and he shall be triable by Juvenile Justice Board. 6. Situated thus, the revisional application is allowed. The order dated 23-8-2007 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Malda in GR Case No. 1392 of 2006 is set aside. 7. A copy of the order shall be sent to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate for information and necessary action. 8. Urgent xerox certified copies of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties as expeditiously as possible. Application allowed.