Mandhata Singh, J.:- In the case, age of the petitioner has been assessed 23 years which is affirmed by the appellate court also. There is no need to lay down the fact of the case as assessment of age is only in question. It is worthless to mention that once age of the petitioner was decided by the Juvenile Justice Board which was challenged in appeal and was allowed with some direction. Now this order is affirmed by the appellate court. 2. In the case, witnesses are examined on behalf of the petitioner. Certificate of birth register is filed. Thereafter, opinion of the Medical Board is obtained. Certificate of birth register has rightly been not taken into consideration as birth was registered only after making some observation on the point of assessment of age. Admit card if can be taken as certificate of matriculation is also doubted. Then evidence of the witnesses and opinion of the Medical Board remain to discuss. 3. Before entering into this admissibility it is pertinent to mention here that 2000(4) Crimes 159 was referred on behalf of the petitioner while 2007(4) PLJR 479 (Anil Yadav @ Bare Yadav & anr. Vrs. The State of Bihar) is relied. 2000(4) Crimes 159 is not relied upon as it was concerning provisions enumerated in Juvenile Justice Act 1986 but further mistake is committed by the court by relying the observation made in 2007(4) PLJR 479 . Though there is nothing which can be deviated from the observation made by the Board in following guidelines made in 2007(4) PLJR 479 save and except the conclusion of age 23 year but there is more specification rather mandate of the legislation to be followed under the guidelines (rules) framed in Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007. Rule 12 of the Rules is there providing admissibility of evidence on the point of age that is matriculation or equivalent certificate, if available. Date of birth certificate from the school (other than play school) first attended and in absence thereof the birth certificate given by the Corporation or a Municipal Authority or a Panchyat and in absence of all of them the opinion of the Medical Board with further provision of margin of one year which can be made in accepting the opinion that also in favour of the juvenile. 4. 4. Observation made in 2007(4) PLJR 479 is made before coming into force of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules 2007. So the Rules which can be taken as mandate of the legislation should be followed which has not been followed by the Juvenile Justice Board as well as by the learned Sessions Judge and imaginary age has been assessed by the Board, i.e., 23 years having no basis for such conclusion. 5. Accordingly, the revision petition is allowed. The judgement dated 27.2.2009 passed by learned Shri Birendra Kumar, District and Sessions Judge, Madhepura, in Cr. Appeal no.3 of 2009 and the order dated 12.1.2009 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Madhepura, in Murliganj P.S. case no.34 of 2008 corresponding to G.R. no.334 of 2008 are set aside. The matter is sent back to the court below to decide the case (age) afresh in accordance with law taking into consideration the Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007.