Judgment ( 1. ) This Criminal Revision is preferred by the Petitioner/Complainant against the Order passed on Date 8-5-2009 in Sessions Trial No. 34/2008 by Additional Sessions Judge, Jaura, wherein the application preferred under Section 32 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 has been allowed by the Court below by finding the accused Naresh Singh to be a Juvenile in an offence registered against him by the Police Station Jaura, under Sections 302, 336, 323, 147, 148, 149 of IPC. ( 2. ) The facts of the case are that accused Naresh Singh Gurjar was arrested on date 13-8-2007 in.relation to Crime No. 191/2007 registered by Police Station, Jaura under Sections 302, 336, 323, 147, 148, 149 of IPC, where in the arrest memo, the age of the accused Naresh was described as 19 years and in spite of the production of a certificate of middle school examination, the Court below has treated him to be a juvenile and has transmitted him to the Juvenile Court, instead of directing him to face Regular Trial before the competent Sessions Court, From a perusal of the record it appears that initially an application was filed under Section 32 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 before the judicial Magistrate First Class, Jaura on behalf of all the three accused, namely Jogindra Singh, Sanjay Singh and Naresh Singh by demonstrating each one of them to be a Juvenile, but when the matter was fixed for consideration of the report about the age of the accused persons, the application was not pressed and accordingly the Judicial Magistrate First Class disposed of the application. The record further reveal that when another application under Section 437 of Cr. P.C. was filed before the Judicial Magistrate First Class Jaura on 20-11-2007, the accused Naresh Singh was not described as a Juvenile and subsequently also when the case was committed to the Sessions Court and charges were framed in Session Trial No. 34/2008 and the case was fixed for recording the prosecution evidence, no efforts were made to describe or declare Naresh Singh as a juvenile. ( 3. ( 3. ) Shri G.S. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant has contended that an application was filed under Section 32 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 on behalf of the accused Naresh Singh by relying upon a Horoscope (Janam Patri) prepared by some Pandit along with affidavit of the Father and Mother of the accused Naresh Singh and a declaration/adjudication was sought on those grounds that the accused is Juvenile, who needs to be tried by the Juvenile Court. ( 4. ) Shri V. K. Saxena, Learned Senior Counsel has contended that the accused had prayed for his examination by the Medical Board and accordingly the learned sessions Court has ordered for the constitution of the Medical Board, where the accused Naresh Singh was examined and found to be a male person not below the age of 16 years and not above the age of 19 years, meaning thereby, that the Medical Board was certain about the age and the report was clear on the point that accused was below 18 years of age. ( 5. ) It is contended on behalf of the complainant that the entire inquiry regarding the age of the applicant was going on without noticing the Complainant and when it was revealed to the complainant (through his counsel) that an inquiry was going on about determination of the age of the accused, an appiication was filed on behalf of the Complainant/petitioner along with certain documents to demonstrate that the accused Naresh Singh had completed 18 years of age on the date of the incident, however, the Court below after considering the evidence, Affidavits. Horoscope (Janam Patri), opinion1 of the Medical Board and the certificate of the middle school has incorrectly recorded the finding that the accused Naresh Singh had not completed 18 years of age at the time of commission of the offence and has. further ordered for submission of separate challan before the Juvenile Court, Morena vide order dated 8-5-2009 in contravention to the provisions of law. ( 6. ) Before proceeding with the merits of the matter, it would be pertinent to note that neither the accused nor the Sessions Court have taken pains to ascertain as to whether the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 is in existence or not as this Act had long been repealed with the promulgation of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children), Act. 2000, where an independent procedure ,has been prescribed in relation to the determination of the age of the Juvenile. Therefore the entire exercise of determination of the age based on repealed enactment seems to be carried out in ignorance of the relevant provisions of law. ( 7. ) The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 is an enactment promulgated by the Parliament to consolidate and amend the law relating to the Juvenile, not only for the purpose of adjudication of the offence but also promulgated with a view to secure the ultimate rehabilitation of the Juvenile offenders, described as "Juvenile in conflict with law" and not as an offender. This enactment deals with variety of the exigencies including the manner and method of determination of the age of the Juvenile, for the purpose of granting the benefit of the provisions of enactment to a Juvenile offender. ( 8. ) Coming back to the facts of the case, it would be relevant to notice that when the application was (filed before the Additional Sessions Judge, in the pending Sessions Trial, for seeking declaration of the accused Naresh Singh as a Juvenile Offender, no efforts were made by the accused to disclose the fact of filing of the previous application before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class and no averment was made about his Admission in some school, however one specific averment was made that he is illiterate and his age may be ascertained, on the basis of the Horoscope as also by subjecting him to the medical examination however, the complainant has produced before the sessions Court a Certificate/Mark Sheet of the accused Naresh Singh to demonstrate that he has not only studied in a school but his exact date of birth has been specifically recorded in Mark Sheet as date 10-4-1988. This mark sheet was issued by the competent authority i.e. District Education Officer, Morena and the complainant has furnished an authenticated duplicate copy of the same for demonstrating the exact date- of birth of the accused before sessions Court. This mark sheet was issued by the competent authority i.e. District Education Officer, Morena and the complainant has furnished an authenticated duplicate copy of the same for demonstrating the exact date- of birth of the accused before sessions Court. The sessions Court permitted the parties to participate in the process of determination of the age, pursuant to which the complainant and the accused person have adduced the oral and documentary evidence and the accused was sent for his Medical Examination also, however no definite opinion was given by the Medical Board about the exact date of birth of the accused, therefore, it seems that the learned Sessions Court a as not justified in drawing any hypothetical conclusions in the present matter on the basis of the indefinite opinion of the Medical Board. ( 9. ) Shri V. K. Saxena, Learned Senior Counsel for the respondent No. 1 has submitted that the Sessions Court has conducted the inquiry in accordance with the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act and no fault could be found with the inquiry conducted by the Sessions Court. He further submits that the scope of the revision is very narrow and evaluation of the factual aspect of the matter cannot be gone into by this Court and since the accused person has established his age below 18 years with the assistance of the Affidavits, Horoscope, statements of the parents and the report of the Medical Board, no interference is called for by the High Court. ( 10. ) It would be pertinent to observe that the Sessions Court has fallen into grave error while invoking the provisions of the repealed enactment for the purpose of making an inquiry about the age of the Juvenile without further caring to notice that the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2000 provide for the procedure of conducting the inquiry about the determination of age of accused. Section 7 of the Act provide and prescribe the procedure which has been further strengthened with the introduction of S. 7 A by the Amendment Act-No, 33 of 2006, where a specific procedure has been provided in relation to the claims of the juvenility, wherein a specific mention has been made that no evidence shall be recorded on Affidavit. For ready reference Section 7 and Section 7A are re-produced herein below :- "7. For ready reference Section 7 and Section 7A are re-produced herein below :- "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 proceeding is forwarded under sub-section (1) shall hold the inquiry as if the Juvenile or the child had originally been brought before it. 7A. 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 orders and the sentence, if any, passed by a Court shall be deemed to have no effect." ( 11. (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 orders and the sentence, if any, passed by a Court shall be deemed to have no effect." ( 11. ) The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 provides for determination of the age of the Juvenile by the Competent Authority, the Juvenile Board and the Court, whenever a Juvenile is produced or brought before it, however the manner and the method of conducting the inquiry remain the same, as right from Section 7 and Section 7A to the stage of Section .49, the procedure prescribed for the determination of the age by the Magistrate, Court or the Competent Authority remains identical and as such it becomes the bounded duty of the Court (Sessions Court herein) to conduct proper inquiry into the matter of determination of the age of the juvenile, but it seems that neither the inquiry was conducted in terms of the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 nor the parties were given adequate opportunity to adduce the evidence and last but not the least, the Sessions Court has completely erred in determining the age of the Juvenile based upon the evidence available on the record, as it was not justified by the Sessions Court to have relied upon the Horoscope alone in comparison to the Mark Sheet placed on record by the complainant, by simply classifying that Mark Sheet to be a duplicate Mark Sheet and by brushing aside the documentary evidence by finding fault with the complainant that the admission form and admission register were not called or produced in support of the correctness of the contents of the Mark Sheet, as the scope of the inquiry contemplated even in the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 was not in strict terms of the law of evidence where a party is required to adduce the secondary evidence with certain restrictions and fulfilment of requirements of law. ( 12. ( 12. ) The Sessions Court while refusing to rely upon the Mark Sheet of the accused Naresh Singh Gurjar has completely ignored the scope of the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 and has also escaped its attention from the provisions as contained in Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act, where the relevant extract in the public record, made in performance of the official duty is described to be a relevant fact and the same could have been pressed into service for the adjudication of the dispute of the present nature, because when a specific date of birth was marked in the mark sheet of the accused person at the instance and disclosure of parents of accused then it was the duty of the Court below to have asked the accused person to lead evidence either in support of the same or to negative the contention of the complainant as it was well within the scope and sweep of the inquiry being conducted by the Sessions Court for determination of the age of juvenile although in strict terms the burden or onus was upon the complainant himself. ( 13. ) The Honble Supreme Court had an occasion to deal with the issue of determination of the age of the Juvenile where in its judgment reported as (2008) 13 Supreme Court Cases 133 : AIR 2009 SC 314 (Babloo Pasi v. State of Jharkhand and another), the Supreme Court has not only recognized the right of the complainant to be heard during the course, determination of age of the accused person but it has further observed that no order should be passed which is prejudicial to any person without affording opportunity of hearing and since in the present matter no adequate opportunity of hearing was afforded to the complainant by the Court (but for the intervention of the complainant in the midst of the inquiry) and as such the inquiry conducted by the Sessions Court becomes an exercise made in violation to the principle of natural justice as also in violation to the dictum of the Honble Supreme Court. ( 14. ( 14. ) The Supreme Court has further held in the case of Babloo Pasi (supra) that the opinion of the Medical Board and the Radiological examination/Ossification test are useful methods of determination of the age but they cannot be treated to be the conclusive proof for determination of the age of the accused person, as there can be no uniform standard of growth of an individual due to variations in climate, diet, genes and other factors and particularly when the Medical Board has given an indefinite opinion about the age to be in between 16 to 19 years, it certainly increases the chance of committing error in the determination process, but it would be noteworthy to mention that when the Medical Opinion is based upon sound and recognized principles of anatomy, physiology and radiology, the findings could certainly be utilized and exclusive reliance could very well be placed upon the expert Medical Opinion, during the process of determination of age of the accused person. ( 15. ) The Supreme Court has also taken into consideration the borderline cases, where the determination of the age of the accused becomes a complex exercise, wherein no fixed norms or formula could possibly be laid down and as such the Supreme Court has alarmed (rather warned) the Courts that while conducting inquiry about the Age of the accused the Court should ensure that the protection available to the Juvenile should not be permitted to be misused by unscrupulous offenders involved in the serious crime. ( 16. ) Therefore, in view of the aforesaid analysis of the facts and the position of law the order passed by the Sessions Court regarding determination of the age of the accused and consequent order of filing of separate challan before the Juvenile Court are set aside and the Sessions Court is, hereby directed to conduct an independent inquiry for determination of the age of the accused Naresh Singh while keeping in mind the procedure prescribed by the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 as also by abiding itself by the guidelines provided in the judgment of the Supreme Court reported as (2008) 13 Supreme Court Cases 133 : AIR 2009 SC 314 (Babloo Pasi v. State of Jharkhand and another) by permitting the complainant and the Accused to adduce oral and documentary Evidence in support of their respective claims/contention. ( 17. ( 17. ) Therefore, the Criminal Revision preferred on behalf of the Complainant is allowed and the impugned Order dated 8-5-2009 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Jaura in Sessions Trial No. 34/2008 is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Sessions Court, for conducting a fresh inquiry, for determination of the age of the Accused Naresh Singh. Petition allowed.