JUDGMENT Hon’ble Bharat Bhushan, J.—Heard Mr. M. P. Singh Gaur, learned counsel for the revisionists, Mr Pankaj Satsangi, Advocate has filed his parcha on behalf of respondent No. 2 and learned AGA for the state respondent. This criminal revision is directed against the judgement and order dated 3.7.2014 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 6, Badaun in Sessions Trial o. 43 of 2012 (State v. Irfan and others) under Section 302 IPC, P.S. Islam Nagar, District Budaun, whereby the application filed on behalf of both the revisionist for declaring him juvenile under the provisions of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2000 (n short Juvenile Justice Act) has been rejected. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the revisionists Rizwan and Amir Suhil (minors) were summoned by the trial court in exercise of power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for facing trial in Sessions Trial No. 43 of 2012 (State v. Irfan and others), under Section 302, 34, 120-B IPC. In the meantime, an application paper 41(kh) was moved by the father of the revisionists claiming juvenility on the date of incident under the provisions of Juvenile Justice Act. Trial Court after considering the arguments of both the parties and relying upon the voter list submitted by the prosecution rejected the application of the claimant vide order dated 3.7.2014. It is this order which is subject-matter of challenge before this Court. 3. Perusal of the impugned order reveals that the application of revisionists claiming juvenility was primarily rejected on the ground that no evidence has been adduced on behalf of the revisionists and therefore relied upon the voter list produced by the prosecution. But the contents of the application paper 41(kh) indicates that the application itself contained averment that there was no educational or age certificate available as both the revisionists/accused were illiterate. Father of the revisionists, therefore, stated that it was not possible for him to provide any certificate required under the law. The claimant specifically requested the trial court to get the medical examination conducted for ascertaining the age of the revisionists. 4. Section 7-A of the Juvenile Justice Act envisages an inquiry to be conducted before claim of juvenility is determined. The claimant specifically requested the trial court to get the medical examination conducted for ascertaining the age of the revisionists. 4. Section 7-A of the Juvenile Justice Act envisages an inquiry to be conducted before claim of juvenility is determined. Section 7-A of the Act provides as under : Section 7-A. Procedure to be followed when claim of juvenility is raised before any Court— (1) Whenever a claim of juvenility is raised before any Court or a Court is of the opinion that an accused person was a juvenile on the date of commission of the offence, the Court shall make an inquiry, take such evidence as may be necessary (but not an affidavit) so as to determine the age of such person, and shall record a finding whether the person is juvenile or a child or not, stating his age as nearly as may be; Provided that a claim of juvenility may be raised before any Court and it shall be recognized at any stage, even after final disposal of the case, and such claim shall be determined in terms of the provisions contained in this Act and the rules made thereunder, even if the juvenile has ceased to be so on or before the date of commencement of this Act. (2) If the Court finds a person to be a juvenile on the date of commission of the offence under sub-section (1), it shall forward the juvenile to the Board for passing appropriate order, and the sentence, if any, passed by a Court shall be deemed to have no effect.” 5. Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules 2007 indicates the procedure to be followed to give effect to the provisions of Section 7 A of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, as well as, the subsequent amendment of 2006. Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules 2007 indicates the procedure to be followed to give effect to the provisions of Section 7 A of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, as well as, the subsequent amendment of 2006. Sub rule (3) of Rule 12 provides that in every case concerning a child or juvenile in conflict with law, the age determination inquiry shall be conducted by the Court or the Board or as the case may be, the Committee by seeking evidence by obtaining— (a)(i) the matriculation or equivalent certificates, if available; and in absence whereof; (ii) the date of birth certificate from the school (other than a play school) first attended; and in the absence whereof; (iii) the birth certificate given by a corporation or a municipal authority or a panchayat; (b) and only in the absence of either (i),(ii) or (iii) of clause (a) above, the medical opinion will be sought from a duly constituted Medical Board, which will declare the age of the juvenile or child. 6. The claimant, who is father of both the revisionists in his application 41(kh) itself mentions that no certificate as mentioned under Rule 12(3)(a) (i)(ii)(iii) was available, therefore, the medical report contemplated under Rule 12(3)(b) should have been sought from the duly constituted Medical Board. As stated earlier, the voter list produced by the prosecution and relied upon by the trial judge was not permissible under Rule 12 of the Rules 2007. Even if, the Uttar Pradesh Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules 2004 (in short UP Rules) are taken into consideration, the voter list cannot be relied upon while adjudicating the claim of the juvenility of revisionists. In the case of Annu @ Vikram v. State of UP, Laws (All)-2013-3-91, this court has already given opinion about the voter list by holding that the age recorded in the voter list cannot be taken to be a guide for determining the age of the accused. Voter list is not a document mentioned in Rule 12 (3) of the Rules 2007 and has no relevance for determination of age. 7. In view of above, the view taken by the trial Judge is not sustainable. An inquiry into juvenility of an accused is not an empty formality. Voter list is not a document mentioned in Rule 12 (3) of the Rules 2007 and has no relevance for determination of age. 7. In view of above, the view taken by the trial Judge is not sustainable. An inquiry into juvenility of an accused is not an empty formality. The powers of the court to inquire into the juvenility of an accused are unlimited. On one side, a person should not be permitted to take a false plea of juvenility to escape punishment and on the other hand, a juvenile should not suffer on account of lack of proper representation or lack of means. When an inquiry is being held by the court, it can summon any person as a witness at the expense of the State to find out the truth. Such an inquiry is not a mere formality. It is apparent that in the instant case, learned trial court has failed to discharge its duties in a fair and proper manner as mandated by the Juvenile Justice Act. Therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained and the matter has to be remanded for a fresh decision on the point of juvenility of the revisionists. 8. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision is allowed. The impugned order dated 3.7.2014 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 6, Badaun in Sessions Trial o. 43 of 2012 (State v. Irfan and others) under Section 302 IPC, P.S. Islam Nagar, District Budaun is hereby set aside. Learned Additional Sessions Judge is directed to hold a proper inquiry in accordance with law after giving an opportunity of hearing and leading evidence to the parties and if any request is made for constituting the medical board for ascertaining the age of the revisionists, the court below shall take into consideration and shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with Rule 12(3)(b) of the Rules, if it is found that no other materials as envisages under Rule 12(3)(a)(i)(ii)(iii) of the Rules are available. —————