ARVIND KUMAR TRIPATHI, J. Heard learned Counsel for the revisionist, learned AGA and perused the record. This criminal revision has been filed with a prayer to quash the orders dated 23. 5. 2008, 16. 4. 2008 and 22. 1. 2008 and al low the present criminal revision. 2. Learned Counsel for the revision ist submitted revisionist being husband of the victim was charge- sheeted under sec tions 498-A, 304-B, 323 IPC and 3/4 D. P. Act, Police Station Mahroni, District Lalitpur. Revisionist moved an application to declare him juvenile and by order dated 28. 2. 2007 on the basis of medical report he was found 17 years of his age. There was two certificates, in one of the certificate date of birth of revisionist was mentioned as 20. 4. 1988 while in another certificate filed on behalf of revisionist date of birth of revisionist was mentioned as 20. 4. 1990. Since there was two date of births men tioned in school record, hence revisionist was medically examined. Therefore, he was declared juvenile by order dated 28. 2. 2007 Against the aforesaid order, an appeal was preferred, the appellate Court allowed the appeal by judgment and order dated 22. 1. 2008 and remanded the matter to the Juvenile Justice Board to consider the mat ter afresh. After matter was remanded, the Juvenile Justice Board by impugned judg ment and order dated 16. 4. 2008 held that the revisionist was not juvenile and his prayer for juvenility was rejected. Further the matter was referred for enquiry by the District Basic Education Officer regarding forgery committed by the person con cerned, regarding issuing of forged certifi cate showing different date of birth. 3. Learned Counsel for the revision ist contended that since in two different certificates different date of births were mentioned, hence Principal Judge Juvenile Justice Board, Lalitpur has committed error in rejecting the application of revisionist because if date of birth mentioned in the school certificate was doubtful and same has to be decided on the basis of medical report. 4. From perusal of the record and impugned order, it is clear that one certifi cate of Deewan Pratap Singh Uchchttar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Saidpur, Lalitpur was filed in which date of birth of revision ist was mentioned as 20. 3. 4. From perusal of the record and impugned order, it is clear that one certifi cate of Deewan Pratap Singh Uchchttar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Saidpur, Lalitpur was filed in which date of birth of revision ist was mentioned as 20. 3. 1988 while an other certificate of the same college was filed on behalf of revisionist in which date of birth was mentioned as 20. 4. 1990 and on that basis he was claiming that he was mi ner. Since two date of births were men tioned, hence he was got medically exam ined. The principal of the institution was examined who came alongwith original record and he has verified that date of birth mentioned in certificate 32-Ka (2) was cor rect date of birth and there was his signa ture on the certificate. However, paper No. 13ka (2) which was photocopy in which the dale of birth was mentioned as 20. 4. 1990 and that was incorrect, when in original record of the institution date of birth was mentioned as 20. 4. 1988, how in the certifi cate of which photocopy was filed date of birth was mentioned as 20 4. 1990 which was against the original record and High School certificate. In view of the provision mentioned in Rule 12 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, the medical opinion can be obtained and taken into consideration in absence of the school certificate. In the present case, there was mark-sheet of High School examination and other school certificates according to which, date of birth of the revisionist was 20. 4. 1988, hence medical opinion was not required to be considered and relied to as certain the age. 5. In view of the fact and circum stances, there is no two date of births men tioned in the institution, the certificate ob tained and filed on behalf of revisionist was found to be incorrect and the certifi cate in which date of birth 20. 4. 1988 was mentioned, same was proved by the Prin cipal of the institution who appeared with original record. According to school certifi cate revisionist was major and that was not doubtful, hence Principal Judge Juvenile Justice Board has rightly relied on the date of birth mentioned in High School certifi cate and rightly both the Courts below rejected the application for declaring the re visionist juvenile. 6. According to school certifi cate revisionist was major and that was not doubtful, hence Principal Judge Juvenile Justice Board has rightly relied on the date of birth mentioned in High School certifi cate and rightly both the Courts below rejected the application for declaring the re visionist juvenile. 6. In view of the facts and circum stances of the case, there is no illegality in the impugned orders, hence I am not in clined to interfere in the order. With these observations, present crimi nal revision is rejected. .