JUDGMENT Hon’ble Sudhir Kumar Saxena, J.—This criminal revision is directed against the order dated 11.8.2010 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Aligarh whereby he has declared Amit Kumar Juvenile. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties this revision is being disposed of finally. 2. I have heard Sri Amit Daga for the revisionist and Sri R.L. Shukla for the respondent. Facts in short are that the F.I.R. was lodged on 7.7.2006 against Amit and others, to the effect that informant’s 11 years old son was murdered. The revisionist and other co-accused dumped the body in a 4' deep pit and the said body was recovered in pursuance of disclosure made by Amit and co-accused. Applicant’s prayer for bail was rejected by the Sessions Judge as well as by this Court on 10.4.2009. Till then the applicant did not take the plea of juvenility. 3. It appears that on 6.6.2007 the applicant moved an application on the ground that his date of birth is 5.7.1989 as such on the date of occurrence he was Juvenile. In support of his application he filed mark sheet of High School issued by State Education Board. Objection was filed by the father of the deceased to the effect that in the New S.B.B.M.J. School, Aligarh from where applicant had passed class VIII in the year 2000, his date of birth is recorded as 3.11.1987 as such the date of birth mentioned in the High School Mark-Sheet is palpably wrong. The date of birth of his sister Rachna is 16.6.1989 as such both brother and sister’s cannot take birth within an interval of one month. In the objection the date of birth in the Mark Sheet was seriously disputed. In support of Objection Transfer Certificate issued by New S.B.B.M.J. School, Aligarh was filed. 4. It appears that the trial Court also obtained the opinion of medical board which found the age of applicant to be 25 years. Mother of applicant Smt. Sunita as well as step mother Smt. Savitri were examined. Sunita stated that Rachna was not her daughter while Savitri stated that he had no daughter namely Rachna. She named her daughter as Antim. As such both these wives explained the difference of age and Transfer Certificates from the School were filed. Objector also filed Transfer Certificate of Rachna wherein name of guardian is recorded as Smt. Sunita Singh. Sunita stated that Rachna was not her daughter while Savitri stated that he had no daughter namely Rachna. She named her daughter as Antim. As such both these wives explained the difference of age and Transfer Certificates from the School were filed. Objector also filed Transfer Certificate of Rachna wherein name of guardian is recorded as Smt. Sunita Singh. In this Mark sheet the date of birth of Rachna is entered as 16.6.1989. Trial trial Court allowed the application of Amit and declared him Juvenile. This order has been challenged by informant in this revision. 5. Learned counsel submits that trial Court had not considered the evidence available on record but had passed order merely relying upon Mark-Sheet of High School. Trial Court has also failed to consider that plea of juvenile was not raised even during the disposal of bail application filed before the High Court. He submits that paper work is fabricated only to get benefit of J.J. Act. 6. Sri R.L. Shukla on the other hand contends that Central Government in exercise of power under Section 68 of the Act has framed Rules and Rule 12 thereof mandates that other evidence will be seen when matriculation certificate is not available. Since the Matriculation Certificate was available according to which the applicant was juvenile, the trial Court has not committed any error in ignoring the other material. 7. Section 49 of the Act directs that enquiry into the plea of juvenile will be held and for that purpose “shall take such evidence as made by necessary”. Rule 12 which has been relied upon by Sri Shukla also states that the finding with regard to age will be determined after taking evidence. More over it is always open to contend that the Matriculation Certificate filed as evidence is the fake paper or the entry made therein is not correct or non existent. In the case of Vineet Kumar, 2007(7) ADJ 547 , similar view has been taken. While making enquiry into plea of juvenility it is duty of enquiry body to give a finding on the correctness of date of birth contained in the matriculation Certificate, if such entry is disputed by the prosecution. 8. It is true that once a mode is provided to do a thing in certain manner, the thing has to be done in accordance with that mode or not at all. 8. It is true that once a mode is provided to do a thing in certain manner, the thing has to be done in accordance with that mode or not at all. In the absence of Matriculation Certificate other evidence can be seen but veracity or basis of Matriculation Certificate cannot be examined by the trial Court in enquiry, is not a correct proposition of law. If in the School from where the revisionist passed class VIII the different date of birth has been entered and this material was available before the enquiry Court, it was incumbent upon the Court to give due weight to that evidence also before placing reliance on High School Mark-Sheet. 9. Trial Court has relied upon the mark-sheet solely on the ground that it was issued in the year 2005 a year prior to the date of occurrence, therefore its validity cannot be doubted. In my opinion that was not a correct approach. The trial Court has failed to consider that plea of juvenility was never raised even in the HIgh Court which has rejected the bail application, Medical Board of AMU has found age of applicant about 25 years. Trial Court has further failed to consider the Transfer Certificate issued by New S.B.B.J.M School giving date of birth of applicant Amit. Validity of Mark-Sheet should have been examined alongwith the entire material available on the record. Although trial Court has observed that aforesaid material was filed but has failed to consider the probative value thereof. 10. In this view of the matter trial Court, in my opinion has not exercised its power in accordance with law. In the case of Jabar Singh v. Dinesh and another, 2010 SAR (Criminal) 282. Hon’ble Apex Court has taken the view “while exercising such revisional power the High Court cannot convert itself to appellate Court and reverse the finding of fact arrived by the trial Court on the basis of evidence or material on record except where the High Court not satisfied as to legality or propriety of the order passed by the trial Court”. It has been shown that trial Court has not considered the effect of Transfer Certificate filed in respect of the applicant as well as his sister and the discripancies between the statements of two wives as such finding with regard to the age cannot be sustained. It has been shown that trial Court has not considered the effect of Transfer Certificate filed in respect of the applicant as well as his sister and the discripancies between the statements of two wives as such finding with regard to the age cannot be sustained. However this Court does not find it proper to itself record a finding regarding date of birth on the basis of evidence, consequently matter is to be remanded back to the trial Court. The revision is allowed. The impugned order dated 11.8.2010 is set aside. Trial Court is directed to decide the matter afresh in the light of observation made above after considering the entire evidence and giving opportunity to the parties. Parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on 2.3.2012. ——————