JUDGMENT Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. 1. This revision has been directed against the judgment and order dated 26.10.2005 rendered Sessions Judge, Pithoragarh in criminal appeal no. 31 of 2004 thereby upholding the conviction and sentence dated 06.10.2004 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Didihat, District Pithoragarh in criminal case no. 388 of 2004. The revisionist was tried for the offence under Section 377 IPC pertaining to crime no. 26 of 2004 police station Jauljivi, District Pithoragarh and the learned Magistrate found him guilty for the said offence and sentenced him to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment nay a fine of Rs. 2000/- and in default of payment, he was further directed to undergo three months’ additional imprisonment. 2. Learned counsel for the revisionist has argued that the date of incident was 20.03.2004 while date of birth revisionist is 01.07.1988, so at the time of commission of alleged crime he was 15-year, 8-month, 19-day old i.e. below the age of 18 years, thus he was ‘juvenile’, as envisaged under Section 2 (k) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (Act No. 56 of 2000) (for brevity hereinafter called as “the Act”). 3. Learned counsel for the revisionist has further argued that this plea was also taken before the Magistrate, which finds mention at page no. 14 of the judgment, but the learned Magistrate was of the view that entry in the Family Register had been interpolated by cutting date of birth from 01.07.1985 and making it 01.07.1988. He has also expressed his view that in the case diary as well as in the medico legal report prepared by police and doctor respectively, the age of revisionist was mentioned as 19 years, so the Magistrate did not accept the argument of juvenility of revisionist while passing the order of conviction. 4. This Court feels that the learned Magistrate was misconceived because age of accused in the case diary was generally mentioned by Investigating Officer on his own assessment and it was not based upon any scientific proof. This Court has also looked into the medico legal report of the revisionist wherein doctor has also mentioned revisionist’s age as 19 years not on the basis of any ossification test, but casually in front of name of revisionist his parentage and age has been mentioned. 5. This Court has also looked into the medico legal report of the revisionist wherein doctor has also mentioned revisionist’s age as 19 years not on the basis of any ossification test, but casually in front of name of revisionist his parentage and age has been mentioned. 5. Learned Magistrate was not right while relying upon the case diary, medico legal report as well as parivar register for assessment of revisionist’s age because the correct assessment of revisionist’s age would have been on the basis of school leaving certificate issued by Saraswati Shishu Mandir, Balwakot. This certificate was issued under signature and seal of the Principal of School on dated 23.07.1997. The Principal himself has mentioned the date 23.07.1997 below his signature. In this certificate, the date of birth of revisionist is clearly mentioned as 01.07.1988 (in numbers as well as in words). The date of issuing of this certificate was 7 years prior to the incident, so there is no chance of interpolation. This way, the Court feels that prima facie the averments of revisionist appear to be true and his date of birth is 01.07.1988, making him ‘juvenile’ on the date of occurrence. As per the provision of Section 7A of the Act, plea of juvenile can be raised at any stage and before any court and it shall be recognized as such by the court. So in the above circumstances, judgment and order of conviction passed and maintained by the courts below will be treated to have no effect and the matter is forwarded to the Juvenile Board of District Pithoragarh to pass appropriate orders, as envisaged under Section 7 A (2) of the Act. 6. With the above observations, the revision is finally disposed of.