ORAL ORDER The petitioner on being elected Mukhiya her election was challenged before the State Election Commission on the ground that she was under age. Before the State Election Commission four circumstances were placed by the two parties. One was the date of birth as shown in petitioner’s matriculation certificate which showed her date of birth as 05.08.1995. The second was the certificate of birth issued on 15.01.1989 showing her date of birth to be 11.01.1989. The third was electoral rolls published before these elections were announced which showed her age to be 22 years and the fourth the report of the Collector, Jamui, pursuant to the examination of petitioner by duly constituted Medical Board who opined her age to be between 24 to 26 years. The State Election Commissioner has gone and relied on the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter in brevity “Juvenile Justice Act”) and thus placed reliance only on the matriculation certificate. He has not gone to the authenticity of the birth certificate or got it verified and going by the matriculation certificate he has held petitioner to be under age. 2. Learned counsel for the contesting respondent submits that as per the provisions of Rule-22 of the Bihar Juvenile Justice Rule read with Juvenile Justice Act wherein it is provided that where age is sought to be substantiated by the matriculation certificate that would be the correct age and no other evidence would be acceptable to contradict the same. 3. Having considered the matter, in my view, learned counsel for the contesting respondent and learned counsel for the State Election Commission are not correct in placing reliance on the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act. The Juvenile Justice Act is not an Act made for the purposes of determining the age of a person in general. The Juvenile Justice Act has been enacted with the object to protect juveniles in conflict with law and their rehabilitation. What would be the age of the juvenile in conflict with law keeping in view the aim and object of the Act has been stated. If the entire purpose of the Juvenile Justice Act is different it cannot be adopted for the purposes of anything other than the said Act. This is not either condemnable or safe. What would be the age of the juvenile in conflict with law keeping in view the aim and object of the Act has been stated. If the entire purpose of the Juvenile Justice Act is different it cannot be adopted for the purposes of anything other than the said Act. This is not either condemnable or safe. It has been held repeatedly that definitions and procedure provided in one Act cannot be incorporated or understood in any other Act in the same manner unless the Acts are in pari materia. Here I may usefully refer to what is said in Principles of Statutory Interpretations 9th Edition by Justice G.P. Singh at page 261 noticing large number of judgments of Apex Court in this respect-“However, it is not a sound principle of construction to interpret expressions used in one Act with reference to their use in another Act, and decisions rendered with reference to construction of one Act cannot be applied with reference to the provisions of another Act, when the two Acts are not in pari material.” It is wrong practice to adopt procedure in Juvenile Justice Act to determine the age of a person for that Act has different aims, object and considerations. If the provisions of the Act are examined one would find that once the age is determined on basis of matriculation certificate or by any means by the Juvenile Justice Board then even on production of evidence to the contrary it cannot be subsequently varied. That is not the common law. It is for these reasons it is not permissible or safe to rely on those provisions. 4. Here, as noticed above, there were four documents/circumstances. The first a copy of the birth certificate. If authorities had any doubt in regard thereto before pronouncing upon the judgment, the authenticity thereof ought to have been determined. No such step was taken. This gives the date of birth as 11.01.1989, making petitioner about 23 years of age. The second document is the voters list prepared before the elections were announced. This voters list shows petitioner’s age to be 22 years. The third is the Medical Board constituted by the State itself which assesses the age of the petitioner as between 24 to 26 years. The second document is the voters list prepared before the elections were announced. This voters list shows petitioner’s age to be 22 years. The third is the Medical Board constituted by the State itself which assesses the age of the petitioner as between 24 to 26 years. As against these three documents/circumstance there is only one set of document as against the petitioner, i.e., her matriculation certificate which shows her date of birth as 05.08.1995 making her about 17 years and entry in admission register of the school. 5. The question is whether the State Election Commission was correct in rejecting all the other documents. As noticed above, he has relied on the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act which I have already indicated is not valid. When the matter is in serious dispute and the Medical Board is constituted, the Board gives its opinion that is based on physical examination of a person on scientific basis, the opinion cannot be brushed aside easily. We must remember again that we are not dealing with a juvenile in conflict with law. Thus, when the Medical Board came to the opinion that the age of the petitioner was 24 to 26 years, which is also corroborated by her birth certificate and voters list prepared prior to the announcement of the election, then reliance placed on the matriculation certificate cannot be accepted as correct in law. Here, I may note that the Apex Court in the case of Brij Mohan Singh vs. Priya Brat Narain Sinha since reported in AIR 1965 Supreme Court 282 dealing with an election case has itself noticed that the tendency of Indians is to reduce the age of a person while entering it for the purposes of matriculation. By virtue of this decision of the Apex Court it is held that the age of the voter as shown in the voters list has to be accepted then how could that age change. Evidently, there are conflicting dates. The physical assessment in such a conflicting stands thus cannot be ignored. 6. Thus, in my view, the order of the State Election Commission cannot be sustained. It assessed the age by placing reliance on a wrong provision of law and the wrong procedure in law. Thus, the order of the State Election Commission dated 07.01.2013 passed in Case No.141/12 is set aside. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. 6. Thus, in my view, the order of the State Election Commission cannot be sustained. It assessed the age by placing reliance on a wrong provision of law and the wrong procedure in law. Thus, the order of the State Election Commission dated 07.01.2013 passed in Case No.141/12 is set aside. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. Consequently, there would be no vacancy and no question of fresh election.