JUDGMENT Hon’ble Shri Kant Tripathi, J.—Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned AGA and perused the record. 2. This is a revision against the judgement and order dated 21.5.2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bijnor in Misc. Case No. 85 of 2007 in S.T. No. 544 of 2007 (State v. Kapil) whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge refused to declare the revisionist as a juvenile. 3. It appears that the revisionist Kapil, is the accused in Case Crime No. 115 of 2007, under Sections 354, 376 and 506 IPC, P.S. Nangal, District Bijnor. He moved an application for declaring him as a juvenile with the allegation that he was less than 18 years on the date of the occurrence. In support of the application the revisionist’s father filed his affidavit and a copy of the transfer certificate issued by Mr. Brham Pal Singh, Principal, Nutan Intermediate College, Tisotara, Bijnor. Mr. Brham Pal Singh was also examined alongwith the original register as P.W.-1. 4. The learned Additional Sessions Judge disbelieved the revisionist’s evidence mainly on two grounds, firstly, that there was an interpolation (over writing) on the date of birth shown in the original School record, secondly, record of the primary school first attended by the revisionist, was not filed. 5. The learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that if the School record was not acceptable, the learned Additional Sessions Judge should have obtained a medical report of a duly constituted Medical Board for determining the revisionist’s age, but this was not done. 6. The Uttar Pradesh Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2004 (in short ‘the Rule’) have been framed, which deal with the various matters relating to the Juveniles. The Rule 22 (5) of the said rules is the relevant rule for the purposes of determining the age of the person, who claims himself as a juvenile. The learned lower Court has not considered the provisions of Rule 22 (5) of the said Rules while passing the impugned order and has overlooked the same. The Rule 22 (5) of the said rules is the relevant rule for the purposes of determining the age of the person, who claims himself as a juvenile. The learned lower Court has not considered the provisions of Rule 22 (5) of the said Rules while passing the impugned order and has overlooked the same. Rule 22 (5) of the said Rules is being reproduced as follows: “22 (5) In every case concerning a juvenile or 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 certificates, 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, recorded a finding in respect of his case.” 7. A similar set of rules have also been framed in the State of Jharkhand, which have been referred to in the case of Babloo Pasi v. State of Jharkhand and another, 2009 (64) ACC 754 (SC). In other words, Rule 22 (5) of the U.P. Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2004 is pari materia with Rule 22 (5) of the Jharkhand Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2003. In the case of Babloo Pasi (supra) the Apex Court has interpreted Rule 22 (5) of the Jharkhand Rules and held that in the absence of birth certificate given by a corporation or a municipal authority or date of birth certificate from the school first attended or the Matriculation or equivalent certificate, the medical opinion by a duly constituted Board subject to the margin of one year, in deserving cases shall be relevant for determining the age of the alleged juvenile but the medical opinion per se is not a conclusive proof of the age of the person concerned and it is merely an opinion. The Apex Court further held that it would be imprudent to formulate a uniform standard for the determination of the age. The Apex Court further held that it would be imprudent to formulate a uniform standard for the determination of the age. True the Medical Board’s opinion based on radiological examination is a useful guiding factor for determination of the age of a person but is not incontrovertible. The date of birth is to be determined on the basis of material on record and appreciation of the evidence adduced by the parties. 8. Under the Rule 22 (5) of the Rules, the date of birth certificate issued by a corporation or a municipal authority or school is the relevant material for determining the age of the person who claims to be a juvenile. In absence of these materials, the medical opinion which is controvertible, may be taken into consideration. While considering the medical opinion, a margin of one year for determining the age may be given. 9. If the school record entry proved by P.W. -1, Brham Pal Singh was not genuine and there was availability of the record of the primary school, first attended by the revisionist, the learned trial Court should have made an attempt to procure the primary school record for finding out the age of the revisionist on the date of the occurrence. In case the primary school record is ultimately found as not acceptable, in that event the trial Court will have to obtain a medical opinion by a duly constituted Board, as per rule 22 (5) of the Rule referred in paragraph 6 of this judgement. Therefore, the matter needs to be re-probed by the learned trial Court. 10. The revision is allowed. The impugned order dated 21.5.2010 is set aside. The learned Additional Session Judge is directed to decide the question of the revisionist’s juvenility in the light of the observations made herein before and pass a fresh order in accordance with law. ————