ORDER Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. This application is directed against the order dated 07.02.2009 passed by the Sessions Judge, Saran, Chapra in Cr. Appeal (Juvenile) No. 124/2008 by which the order dated 21.08.2008 passed in Juvenile Enquiry Case No. 360 of 2008 by the Juvenile Justice Board, Saran, Chapra has been set aside. 3. By order dated 21.08.2008 the Court concerned had held that petitioner is Juvenile after discussing various documents produced in support thereof. The said documents were the matriculation certificate, the receipt issued by the Bihar School Examination Board for the matriculation examination, the admit card issued for the said purpose, the school leaving certificate as well as the marksheet issued by the Bihar School Examination Board. Basing its opinion on the said documents the Juvenile Justice Board by order dated 21.08.2008 had held the petitioner to be a Juvenile, since taking the date of birth as per the said documents to be 07.03.1990 and the date of occurrence 22.09.2004, the age of the petitioner on the date of occurrence was held to be 14 years 7 months and 9 days. A copy of the voter list was produced in the year 2007 by the opposite party no. 2 in which the date of birth was mentioned at 23 years. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Sessions Judge by order dated 07.02.2009 has misdirected himself and has gone only on presumption to hold that the date of birth recorded in the documents produced on behalf of the petitioner being of a date later to the date of occurrence, were not reliable. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even the Court holding that as per the medical report the age assessed on 18.07.2008 being 20-22 years, the petitioner was not a Juvenile on the date of occurrence, is also erroneous since according to him as per Rule 12 (3) (b) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Rules’), even if there is a Medical Board where otherwise assessment of age cannot be done, then the benefit should be given to the Child or Juvenile by considering his/her age on the lower side giving margin of one year. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, this is by way of an alternative submission since primarily he has relied on the date of entry in the matriculation certificate which according to him is the final proof as per the said Rule 12 of the Rules. For the said proposition, he has relied on a decision of this Court in the case of Sachin Kumar Gupta @ Sachin Kumar Vs. The State of Bihar & Anr. reported in 2008 (2) P.L.J.R. 800 in which it has been held that matriculation certificate or date of birth certificate of the school first attended or birth certificate granted by Corporation or municipality, if produced and the genuineness of the same not being in dispute, then the Court/Board/Competent Authority is left with no discretion in the matter but to decide as per the recorded date of birth. Learned counsel has summed up by stating that the Sessions Judge, by order dated 07.02.2009 has erroneously given more importance to the Medical report and that too taking it on the higher side of 22 years as well as the fact that the age recorded in the voter list was 23 years. This according to him was not justified in the present case either on facts or in law. 5. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has supported the impugned order and submitted that the documents produced by the petitioner were subsequent to the date of occurrence and thus rightly the Court has not relied upon the same. He has submitted that when the case was being considered the petitioner himself disclosed his age as 23 years and thus it shows that his real date of birth as recorded in the matriculation certificate was false. He has further submitted that the Court has rightly and for correct reasons discarded/disbelieved the proof submitted in favour of the petitioner on the point of his date of birth. 6. This Court has considered the rival submissions of the parties. The law in this regard is well settled, especially with regard to the determination of the date of birth of a Juvenile in conflict with law. The same has to be done as per Rule 12 of the Rules and which have also been clarified and explained in the judgment of this Court in the case of Sachin Kumar Gupta (supra). The same has to be done as per Rule 12 of the Rules and which have also been clarified and explained in the judgment of this Court in the case of Sachin Kumar Gupta (supra). In the present case this Court would just like to add that mere fact that the certificate is of the examination held after the date of occurrence, but in the absence of any cogent or admissible evidence to show that the entry is wrong, the presumption cannot be that the date of birth as mentioned is not correct. In the present case, even if it is taken then there may be some doubt with regard to the actual date of birth of the petitioner, then also the medical report which has to be relied upon comes to the aid of the petitioner for the reason that as per Rule 12 (3) (b), the age as opined by the Medical Board, which is on the lower side and further margin of one year in favour of the child or Juvenile in conflict with law has to be taken into account. If that is done, then the Medical Board opining the age of the petitioner to be 20-22 years on 18.07.2008 will actually lead to the presumption that his age has to be considered 19 years after giving him the margin of one year from the lower side and consequently he was about 15 years old on the date of occurrence. 7. For the reasons aforesaid, the order impugned cannot be sustained and is accordingly set aside. The petitioner is held to be a Juvenile on the date of occurrence for the purposes of the present case, that is, Chapra Mufasil (Khaira) P.S. Case No. 309/2004. The petitioner shall be tried as per the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. 8. This order however, shall not preclude the opposite party no. 2 from moving an appropriate application before the Court concerned in the matter of Juvenility of the petitioner on the basis of cogent and reliable evidence admissible in law. Upon such application being filed on behalf of the opposite party no. 2, the Court concerned shall pass appropriate order in accordance with law. This application accordingly stands allowed in the aforementioned terms.