JUDGMENT 1. - The instant revision petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner challenging the order dated 27.1.2012 passed by the learned Special Judge (NDPS Act) Cases, Jodhpur in Criminal Misc. Case No. 249/2011, whereby, the application filed by the petitioner for being treated as a juvenile and for being tried under the provisions of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 has been rejected. 2. Briefly stated the facts necessary for the disposal of this revision petition are that the petitioner was arrested on 2.4.2010 in connection with an FIR/CR No. 78/2010, registered at the Police Station Jaitaran for the offence under Section 8/15 of the NDPS Act. The police after investigation filed a charge-sheet against the petitioner for the said offence. 3. The allegation of the prosecution as per the charge-sheet was that the petitioner along with co-accused Deepak were apprehended from a trailer, in which, contraband poppy straw weighing 420 kilogram was being transported. The petitioner moved an application in the trial court on 20.5.2011 claiming therein that he was a juvenile on the date of the seizure i.e. 2.4.2010 as his date of birth was 15.6.1992. A transfer certificate issued by the Government Primary School, Hingonia Nada, Khejadli Kalan was filed in support of the application. The learned trial court initiated an enquiry on the basis of the application filed by the petitioner. The prosecution in counter to the application filed by the petitioner placed on record the driving license of the petitioner issued by the R.T.O., Jodhpur. As per the said document, which has been marked as Exhibit A-3/1 at the trial, the date of birth of the petitioner has been mentioned as 6.7.1988. During the course of the enquiry, the documents of the school where the petitioner claimed to have studied were summoned and two witnesses were examined in support of the application. One being Janwta Ram, the father of the petitioner and the other being Smt. Laxmi Bishnoi, the Principal of the Government Primary School, Hingonia Nada, Khejadli Kalan. The petitioner's father Janwta Ram in his examination-in-chief stated that his son Shyam Lal was born on 15.6.1992 and studied in the Government Primary School, Hingonia Nada, Khejadli Kalan. The petitioner's transfer certificate was exhibited by the witness. The petitioner's father Janwta Ram in his examination-in-chief stated that his son Shyam Lal was born on 15.6.1992 and studied in the Government Primary School, Hingonia Nada, Khejadli Kalan. The petitioner's transfer certificate was exhibited by the witness. In cross-examination, the witness was confronted with the certified copy of the petitioner's driving license, on which, the witness admitted that the photograph appended on the driving license was that of his son i.e. the petitioner Shyam Lal. Learned Public Prosecutor has also exhibited the mark-sheets of the petitioner issued by the District Education and Training Institute, Jodhpur, wherein, the date of birth of the petitioner is different from the date of birth mentioned in the transfer certificate Exhibit 1-A. Smt. Laxmi Bishnoi was examined in support of the application as AW-2. She in her testimony stated that she was working as the Principal of the Government Primary School, Hingonia Nada, Khejadli Kalan since 26th September, 2007. She further stated that the entry in the school documents made at the time of Shyam Lal's admission in the school were to the effect that his date of birth was 15.6.1992. She has proved the admission form Exhibit 2-A, application Exhibit 3-A filed by Janwata Ram, father of the petitioner, Exhibit 1-A, the transfer certificate and Exhibit 4-A, the scholar entry register. In her cross examination, she has admitted that the entry No. 45 in the scholar register showing admission of the petitioner in the school on 6.7.2000 was not made by her. She has also admitted that in the last column of signature of the Principal in the same register, she had signed at mark C to D. 4. Akhilesh Choudhary, the Officer of the District Transport Office NAW-1 was examined by the prosecution. He proved the driving license Exhibit A-3/1, which has been issued to petitioner Shyam Lal, wherein, the date of birth of the petitioner has been mentioned as 6.7.1988. Narayan Lal NAW-2 is the SHO who has been examined in support of the charge-sheet. He stated that when being arrested, the petitioner disclosed his age to be 22 years. 5. The learned trial court in pursuance to the enquiry and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties came to a conclusion that the date of birth mentioned in the school record of the petitioner was doubtful. He stated that when being arrested, the petitioner disclosed his age to be 22 years. 5. The learned trial court in pursuance to the enquiry and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties came to a conclusion that the date of birth mentioned in the school record of the petitioner was doubtful. The learned trial Judge held that petitioner Shyam Lal himself did not appear for the purpose of contesting the prosecution's case regarding his driving license. It would not be out of place to mention here that when the enquiry proceedings were initiated, by that time, even as per the date of birth claimed by the petitioner in his application, he had already crossed the age of 18 years and thus was a competent witness. Be that as it may, the learned trial court rejected the application filed by the petitioner by a detailed reasoned order dated 27.1.2012. 6. Now the petitioner has challenged the said order by way of the instant revision petition. 7. Learned counsels Shri N.K.Bohra and Shri B.R.Bishnoi submitted that from a perusal of the school record of the petitioner, it is un-disputedly proved that the petitioner was a juvenile being below 18 years of age on the date of the occurrence. They contended that the learned trial court committed a grave error and gross illegality in rejecting the petitioner's application for being treated to be a juvenile. Learned counsels in support of their submissions placed reliance on the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ashwani Kumar Saxena v. State of M.P., reported in 2012 Cr.L.J. 4731 and argued that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid decision has unequivocally held that only entry of the age in the school is relevant and conclusive for arriving at a conclusion regarding the age of a juvenile. Learned counsels urged that a detailed and roving enquiry for deciding the claim of juvenility was un-warranted. Learned counsels submit that the learned trial court has committed a grave error in making a roving enquiry about the age of the petitioner by procuring the driving license etc. Learned counsels thus submitted that the order passed by the learned trial court, whereby, it is held that the petitioner was not a juvenile on the date of the occurrence was absolutely illegal and the same deserves to be quashed. 8. Learned counsels thus submitted that the order passed by the learned trial court, whereby, it is held that the petitioner was not a juvenile on the date of the occurrence was absolutely illegal and the same deserves to be quashed. 8. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by learned counsels for the petitioner. She submitted that looking to the seriousness of the offence, the learned trial court was absolutely justified in making a thorough enquiry with regard to the age of the petitioner. She contended that at the time when the petitioner was apprehended, he himself disclosed his age to be 22 years. Not only this, the petitioner's driving license was also recovered, wherein, his date of birth was mentioned as 6.7.1988. Learned Public Prosecutor further urged that the school record with regard to the petitioner's entry in the school is highly doubtful. She submitted that the Principal Smt.Laxmi Bishnoi who proved the scholar entry register, Exhibit 4-A admitted in cross examination that the entry was not made by her yet she had signed the column for attesting the entry of the petitioner's name in the said register despite the fact that she was not even posted as a Principal when the entry was made. Learned Public Prosecutor further argued that the petitioner's age in the school record which has been sought to be proved is not on the strength of the certificate of the High School examination and, therefore, such entries in the school record were rightly held not to be conclusive proof for the petitioner's age. Learned Public Prosecutor thus prayed that the order passed by the learned trial court does not call for any interference by this Court. 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the order impugned as well as the record of the case. 10. In the opinion of this court, certain facts which stand out at once in this case are that the recovery of the contraband poppy straw weighing 440 kgs was effected from a trailer in which the petitioner was also present on 2.4.2010. At the time of the recovery, the petitioner disclosed his age to be 22 years. His driving license has been recovered by the Investigating Officer, wherein, the date of birth has been mentioned to be 6.7.1988. At the time of the recovery, the petitioner disclosed his age to be 22 years. His driving license has been recovered by the Investigating Officer, wherein, the date of birth has been mentioned to be 6.7.1988. The application for being treated as a juvenile was filed by the petitioner on 20.5.2011 i.e. after more than one year of his arrest. The school record which has been produced in support of the application is of the petitioner's admission in a primary school and not a certificate of the higher secondary school issued in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner's father Janwta Ram has not proved any document apart from the transfer certificate Exhibit 1-A when he was examined in the court. In his cross examination, he has admitted that the driving license Exhibit A-1 was that of the petitioner Shyam Lal. Smt.Laxmi Bishnoi, AW-2, who has been examined as being the Principal of the school concerned has proved the scholar entry register Exhibit 4-A. Admittedly, Smt.Laxmi Bishnoi was posted in the school for the first time on 26th September, 2007. As per the petitioner case, he studied in the school only up till year 2002. Despite this fact, Smt.Laxmi Bishnoi has signed the column of 'Principal' in the register Exhibit-4A as if to attest the fact that she was the person who made the entry of the petitioner's name in the scholar register. Thus, the entry of the petitioner's age in the scholar register Exhibit 4-A is highly doubtful. A perusal of the scholar entry register Exhibit 4-A further reveals that the petitioner's name has been entered at the serial No. 45 and the entry has been verified by Smt.Laxmi Bishnoi as the Principal despite the fact that she was not even posted in the school at the relevant time. The other entries Nos. 46 to 59, which are below the petitioner's name on the particular page of the scholar register have been signed by O.P. Bishnoi, who was the principal of the school before Smt.Laxmi Bishnoi. Thus, it is apparent that the entry of the petitioner's age in the Scholar Register of Government Primary School, Hingonia Nada, Khejadli Kalan is prima facie a doubtful entry. The petitioner has claimed his date of birth to be 15.6.1992 and the necessary implication would be that the petitioner would have gained majority on 15.6.2000. Thus, it is apparent that the entry of the petitioner's age in the Scholar Register of Government Primary School, Hingonia Nada, Khejadli Kalan is prima facie a doubtful entry. The petitioner has claimed his date of birth to be 15.6.1992 and the necessary implication would be that the petitioner would have gained majority on 15.6.2000. Yet, the application for being treated the petitioner as a juvenile has been filed as late as on 20.5.2011. Even as per the petitioner's own case, he had become major when the application was filed. Therefore, he was a competent witness and could very well have appeared in the witness box for the purpose of disproving the prosecution's claim that the petitioner was a major man as per his date of birth 6.7.1988 as mentioned on his driving license. The petitioner for obvious reasons did not choose to appear in the witness box. 11. The judgment cited by the learned counsels for the petitioner is on different facts because in that case, there was a higher secondary school certificate available on the record for proving the age of the delinquent. In the case at hand, such is not the situation. Thus, this court is of the opinion that the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ashwani Kumar Saxena (supra) is of no avail to the petitioner. 12. As regards the contention of the learned counsels that the court should not make a roving enquiry on an application filed under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, suffice it to say that each case has to be decided on its own facts. In this case the documentary evidence showing the age of the petitioner to be different from that claimed by him was available on the record and, therefore, the prosecution had every right to bring the correct facts on the record. That apart, the gravity of the offence is another factor which would definitely require a closer scrutiny whenever a claim of juvenility is raised. That apart, the gravity of the offence is another factor which would definitely require a closer scrutiny whenever a claim of juvenility is raised. The Court has to remain conscious of the fact that on the one hand, the accused is indulging in the nefarious activities of dealing in narcotics in a clandestine fashion which requires the use of scheming, alert, mature mental and physical faculties and on the other hand, the claim of juvenility based on immaturity, un-awareness and presumption of innocence based on tender age is being raised. Thus, in order to strike a balance, the nature of enquiry has to be guided by the gravity of offence. The graver the offence, the closer the scrutiny needs to be. 13. In the case at hand, the fact that at the time of arrest, the accused revealed his own age to be 22 years and the fact that the application for being treated a juvenile was filed more than a year after the arrest were sufficient reasons to put the Court on guard so as to make a closer scrutiny as regards the claim of juvenility. 14. The net result of the aforesaid discussion is that, this Court is of the opinion that the learned trial court has committed no error in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner for being treated as a juvenile and for trial under the provisions of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act.Resultantly, this revision petition being bereft of any force is hereby dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******