Hon'ble Raj Mani Chauhan, J. :- Heard the learned counsel for the accused-revisionists and learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State. The Criminal Revision No. 331of 2010 has been filed by accused revisionist Nankannu alias Nanku alias Anil Kumar and the Criminal Revision No. 323 of 2010 has been filed by the accused revisionist Devi Prasad against the order dated 18.5.2010, passed by the learned Special Judge, E.C. Act, Gonda in S.T. No. 326 of 2009, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Dhaneypur, District Gonda, whereby the learned Special Judge has rejected the applications moved by the accused revisionists for declaring them juvenile; rather he has held that the accused revisionists were major at the time of occurrence. The common question involved in both the criminal revisions is that whether the learned Special Judge has wrongly rejected the applications of the accused revisionists for declaring them to be juvenile at the time of occurrence. Since both the impugned orders have been passed in the same Sessions Trial, therefore, both the above criminal revisions are being disposed of by a common order. The relevant facts giving rise to the above criminal revisions may be summarized as under:- The above accused revisionists are involved in detained in jail in case crime no. 30 of 2009, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 506 I.P.C., from police station Dhaneypur, District Gonda and are facing trial along with other accused before the learned Special Judge (E.C.Act), Gonda in Sessions Trial mentioned above. Both the accused revisionists moved separate bail applications before the learned Special Judge which were rejected by the learned Special Judge on merit. Both the accused revisionists in their bail applications did not raise any plea of juvenility that they were juvenile on the date of occurrence. The accused revisionists thereafter moved separate bail applications before this Court. The accused revisionists for the first time took plea in their bail applications that they were juvenile within the meaning of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as "Act") on the date of occurrence, therefore, they deserve to be released on bail on this ground alone. The accused revisionists for the first time took plea in their bail applications that they were juvenile within the meaning of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as "Act") on the date of occurrence, therefore, they deserve to be released on bail on this ground alone. Since the question of juvenility was for the first time raised by the accused revisionists in their bail applications before this Court, therefore, their bail applications were finally disposed of by this Court with the observation that the accused revisionists may move fresh bail application before the trial court taking one of the grounds that they were juvenile at the time of occurrence. Both the accused revisionists thereafter moved bail applications before the learned Special Judge, inter-alia on the ground that they were juvenile on the date of occurrence. The learned Special Judge conducted inquiry in the matter as provided under Section 7-A of the Act. The accused revisionist Devi Prasad in support of his application had filed copy of marks-sheet of High School Examination, 2008 and progress report of Sadashiv Uchchatar Madhyamic Vidyalay, Gonda. The accused in addition to documentary evidence had examined his mother Maya Devi as C.W.1 and his father Aggya Ram as C.W.4. The prosecution showing the date of birth of accused revisionist Devi Prasad had filed copy of family register, voter list of Mahnaun Constituency and age certificate issued by the Head Master, Primary School, Lakhnipur, Gonda. The learned Special Judge has observed that Maya Devi (C.W.1), mother of the accused revisionist Devi Prasad had stated that Devi Prasad was her only son who was born in the Hindi month of Jeth and will complete 17 years of age in coming month of Jeth. She could not disclose the year of her marriage as she was illiterate. Aggya Ram (C.P.4) too had stated that his son was born in the Hindi month of Jeth who was going to complete 17 years of age in the coming month of Jeth. He also stated that his son had got admitted in the Primary School, Lakhnipur but he failed to disclose his date of birth. He had further stated that he had got his son and daughter admitted in the Primary School in the same year. He also stated that his son had got admitted in the Primary School, Lakhnipur but he failed to disclose his date of birth. He had further stated that he had got his son and daughter admitted in the Primary School in the same year. The learned Special Judge observed that these witnesses had failed to disclose the actual date of birth of the accused, therefore, their statements were not sufficient to ascertain the actual date of birth of the accused. The learned Special Judge further observed that in the high school marks-sheet of the accused, his date of birth was recorded as 6.7.1993 while in the progress report issued by Sadashiv Uchchatar Madhyamic Vidyalay, his date of birth was shown as 6.6.1993. On the other hand, the age of accused Devi Prasad was shown in the voter list as 28 years. As per records of School Sadashiv Uchchatar Madhyamic Vidyalay, Lakhnipur, the date of birth of accused Devi Prasad was recorded as 6.6.1993 while the date of birth of his younger sister was recorded as 28.9.1993 i.e. the difference of age between two was only three and half months. Therefore, the age recorded in the school records was not acceptable. The learned Special Judge also observed that in view of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case Pratap Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand and others, reported in 2005 (2), Criminal Court Cases, 334 (SC), the date of birth recorded in the High School certificate is relevant but the applicant has to establish about source of knowledge of his date of birth which was recorded in the High School records. Unless it is shown by the applicant as to what was source of knowledge of date of birth of the accused recorded in his high school certificate, such date of birth will not be conclusive. Learned Special Judge got the accused medically examined by Chief Medical Officer, Gonda who reported the age of accused between 17-18 years. The learned Special Judge did not accept his opinion to determine the age of the accused as it was not opinion of the Medical Board. Learned Special Judge keeping in view the oral and documentary evidence on record and the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case held that the accused was not juvenile on the date of occurrence within the meaning of the Act. Learned Special Judge keeping in view the oral and documentary evidence on record and the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case held that the accused was not juvenile on the date of occurrence within the meaning of the Act. Therefore, he rejected the application of the accused by the impugned order; rather he treated the accused as major on the date of occurrence. The accused revisionist Nankannu alias Nanku alias Anil Kumar in support of his allegation made in the application filed documentary evidence as well as adduced oral evidence too. The accused had filed copy of marks-sheet of Junior High School examination of Kedarnath Chhedilal Uchchtar Madhyamik Vidya Mandir, Madhavganj in which his date of birth was recorded as 6.7.1993. The accused had examined his mother Smt. Krishnawati as C.W.2 and his father Nanmoon as C.W.3. The prosecution filed copy of family register and the certificate issued by the Principal of Sri Kedarnath Chhedilal Uchchater Madhyamik Vidhya Maindir showing the date of birth of accused and his brother Suresh Kumar. The learned Special Judge observed that the statements given by the mother and father of the accused regarding his date of birth was of no help to ascertain his date of birth. In the certificate issued by the Principal of the School, the date of birth of the accused was recorded as 6.7.1993 while the date of birth of his younger brother was recorded as 10.7.1993. If these two dates are considered to be their actual date of birth, there will be difference of only 3 days between elder and younger brother. The learned Special Judge thereafter found that the date of birth of accused recorded in the school records of Sri Kedarnath Chhedilal Uchchatar Madhyamik Vidhya Mindir, Madhavganj could not be relied upon to ascertain his actual date of birth. The learned Special Judge called upon the report from Chief Medical Officer, Gonda about the age of accused who had reported that the age of accused was between 17-18 years. The learned Special Judge did not accept report of Chief Medical Officer as it was not the report of Board as required by the Rule 12 of the Rules framed under the Act. The learned Special Judge on the basis of family register found that the date of birth of accused as 1.1.1991. The learned Special Judge did not accept report of Chief Medical Officer as it was not the report of Board as required by the Rule 12 of the Rules framed under the Act. The learned Special Judge on the basis of family register found that the date of birth of accused as 1.1.1991. The learned Special Judge keeping in view the documentary evidence filed by the accused and the prosecution found that the age of the accused was not less then 18 years at the time of occurrence. Consequently, he by the impugned order dated 18.5.2010 rejected the application moved by the accused for declaring him to be juvenile; rather he treated him to be major at the time of occurrence. Both the accused revisionists feeling aggrieved by the impugned order have challenged the same before this Court through the above two revisions. Learned counsel for the accused revisionists contended that the procedure for determining the age of the accused has been laid down under Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children ) Rules 2007 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules"). Sub-rule (3) of Rule 12 of the Rules provides how the age of accused who claims him to be juvenile will be determined. The court determining the age of the accused will first consider the date of birth of accused recorded in the matriculation certificate and if no such certificate is available, the date of birth of accused will be determined on the basis of certificate issued from the school where the accused had first attended. If no such certificate is available then the birth certificate given by a Corporation or a municipal authority or a panchayat will be basis to determine the date of birth of accused and if all the three documents have not been filed by the accused, his age will be determined by the medical board duly constituted in this behalf. In this case, the learned Special Judge has not followed the procedure as laid down under Sub-rule (3) of Rule 12 of the Rules to determine the age of the accused. The learned Special Judge has not relied upon the date of birth of the accused recorded in the school certificate. In this case, the learned Special Judge has not followed the procedure as laid down under Sub-rule (3) of Rule 12 of the Rules to determine the age of the accused. The learned Special Judge has not relied upon the date of birth of the accused recorded in the school certificate. He did not rely upon the medical opinion given by the Chief Medical Officer about the age of the accused; rather he relied upon the date of birth recorded in the family register and the voter list which under Rule 12 of the Rules could not be the basis for determining the age of the accused. The impugned order, therefore, passed by the learned Special Judge is violation of the procedure laid down under Rule 12 of the Rules which is illegal and is liable to be quashed. The learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned A.G.A. although supported the impugned order passed by the learned Special Judge but fairly accepts that the learned Special Judge has not strictly followed the procedure laid down in Sub-rule (3) of Rule 12 of the Rules for determining the age of the accused revisionists. I have given active consideration to the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the accused revisionists and learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned A.G.A. Section 7-A of the Act lays down the procedure to be followed by the court whenever an accused claims to be juvenile before the court where he is facing trial which is being extracted hereinbelow. "7A. "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." Rule 12 of the Rules lays down the procedure to be followed for determination of the age of the accused as juvenile which is being extracted herebelow; "12. Procedure to be followed in determination of Age.- (1) In every case concerning a child or a juvenile in conflict with law, the court or the Board or as the case may be the Committee referred to in rule 19 of these rules shall determine the age of such juvenile or child of a juvenile in conflict with law within a period of thirty days from the date of making of the application for that purpose. (2)The Court or the Board or as the case may be the Committee shall decide the juvenility or otherwise of the juvenile or the child or as the case may be the juvenile in conflict with law, prima facie, on the basis of physical appearance or documents, if available, and send him to the observation home or in jail. (2)The Court or the Board or as the case may be the Committee shall decide the juvenility or otherwise of the juvenile or the child or as the case may be the juvenile in conflict with law, prima facie, on the basis of physical appearance or documents, if available, and send him to the observation home or in jail. (3)In every case concerning a child or juvenile in conflict with law, the age determination inquiry shall be conducted by the court or the Board or, as the case may be, the Committee by seeking evidence by obtaining- (a) (i) the matriculation or equivalent certificates, if available; and in the absence whereof; (ii) the date of birth certificate from the school (other than a play school) first attended; and in the absence whereof; (iii) the birth certificate given by a corporation or a municipal authority or a panchayat' (b) and only in the absence of either (I), (ii) or (iii) of clause (a) above, the medical opinion will be sought from a duly constituted Medical Board, which will declare the age of the juvenile or child. In case exact assessment of the age cannot be done, the Court or the Board or, as the case may be, the Committee, for the reasons to be recorded by them, may, if considered necessary, give benefit to the child or juvenile by considering his/her age on lower side within the margin of one year. and, while 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, record a finding in respect of his age and either of the evidence specified in any of the clauses (a) (i),(ii), (iii) or in the absence whereof, clause (b) shall be the conclusive proof of the age as regards such child or the juvenile in conflict with law. (4) If the age of a juvenile or child or the juvenile in conflict with law is found to be below 18 years on the date of offence, on the basis of any of the conclusive proof specified in sub-rule (3), the Court or the Board or as the case may be the Committee shall in writing pass an order stating the age and declaring the status of juvenility or otherwise, for the purpose of the Act and these rules and a copy of the order shall be given to such juvenile or the person concerned. (5) Save and except where, further inquiry or otherwise is required, inter alia in terms of section 7A, section 64 of the Act and these rules, no further inquiry shall be conducted by the court or the Board after examining and obtaining the certificate or any other documentary proof referred to in sub-rule (3) of this rule. (6) The provisions contained in this rule shall also apply to those disposed of cases, where the status of juveniltiy ha snot been determined in accordance with the provisions contained in sub-rule (3) and the Act, requiring dispensation of the sentence under the Act for passing appropriate order in the interest of the juvenile in conflict with law." From a perusal of the impugned orders, it appears that the learned Special Judge has neither relied upon the date of birth of the accused recorded in the school certificate nor relied upon the report of Chief Medical Officer about the age of the accused. He rather relied upon the copy of family register and the voter list for determination of age of the accused which are not contemplated under Sub-rule (3) of Rules 12 of the Rules. The documents relied upon the learned Special Judge could not the basis for determining the age of the accused. The learned Special Judge was expected to determine the age of the accused in accordance with the provisions laid down under Sub-rule (3) of Rule 12 of the Rules. In fact the learned Special Judge did not strictly complied with the procedure laid down in Sub-rule (3) of Rule 12 of the Rules for determining the age of the accused. The learned Special Judge was expected to determine the age of the accused in accordance with the provisions laid down under Sub-rule (3) of Rule 12 of the Rules. In fact the learned Special Judge did not strictly complied with the procedure laid down in Sub-rule (3) of Rule 12 of the Rules for determining the age of the accused. The impugned orders, therefore, passed by the learned Special Judge are illegal and are liable to be quashed and the matter deserves to be remanded back to the learned Special Judge, E.C. Act, Gonda with the observation to dispose of the applications moved by the accused revisionists in accordance with Sub-rule (3) of Rules 12 of the Rules. The Criminal Revisions are allowed. The impugned orders dated 18.5.2010, passed by the learned Special Judge, E.C. Act, Gonda are set aside and the matter is remanded back to the court of learned Special Judge, E.C. Act, Gonda with the direction that he will dispose of the applications of the accused-revisionists afresh in accordance with the procedure laid down under Sub-rule (3) of Rule 12 of the Rules.