Judgment 1. This revision challenges the order of learned Principal District Sessions Judge, Salem, passed in C.M.P.No.3971 of 2013 in S.C.No.95 of 2013, on 04.06.2014. 2. Petitioner is facing trial for offences under Sections 147, 148, 324, 326, 307, 302 r/w 109 IPC r/w Sec.3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act, 1989. There are 26 accused in the case and this petitioner is arrayed as A13. In C.M.P.No.3971 of 2013, the petitioner informed of his being a juvenile as on the date of occurrence viz., 03.09.2003 and sought that the case against him be split up and referred to the Juvenile Justice Board. Against the dismissal of such petition, the present revision stands filed. 3. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Government Advocate (Crl. side) for respondent. 4. In arriving upon its decision the Court below has informed that Exs.R1 and R2, two entries in the birth register maintained at the Sub Registrar Office inform the date of birth of this petitioner as 22.02.1984 and 06.08.1984 and that the petitioner had not produced any evidence to show that his parents had any other sons. Despite the birth register maintained at Sub Registrar Office informing two different dates in Exs.R1 and R2, the Court below relied upon the same towards arriving at its decision that the petitioner was not a juvenile as on the date of occurrence. The Court below also was of the view that the petition had been moved before it after much delay. 5. The Court below has caused an enquiry through the jurisdictional Deputy Superintendent of Police. Such official in his report submitted before the Court below on 03.01.2014 informed that in Narasimhapuram village, wherein the petitioner was born, several persons answered to the names of Venkatasami and Lakshmi Ammal, the names of the petitioner's parents. As rightly pointed by the learned Government Advocate, that there were two different sets of parents by name Venkatasami and Lakshmi Ammal in the said village could well be the reason behind Exs.R1 and R2 informing different dates of birth of a boy at the said village. More importantly, the Court below has erroneously afforded significance to the birth register maintained by the Sub Registrar as against Exs.P2 and P3 issued by school authorities. One consideration which has weighed with the Court below in doing so is that such exhibits were subsequent documents issued by the school authorities. More importantly, the Court below has erroneously afforded significance to the birth register maintained by the Sub Registrar as against Exs.P2 and P3 issued by school authorities. One consideration which has weighed with the Court below in doing so is that such exhibits were subsequent documents issued by the school authorities. Ex.P2 is a transfer certificate and Ex.P3 – the 10th standard mark sheet. The Court below has failed to note that the enquiry report submitted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police specifically informed the genuineness of the documents produced by the petitioner. 6. Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 reads thus: “Rule 12: Procedure to be followed in determination of age:--(1) In every case concerning a child or a juvenile in conflict with law, the Court or the Board, as the case may be, the Committee referred to in rule 19 of these rules shall determine the age of such juvenile or child or a juvenile in conflict with law within a period of thirty days from the date of making of the application for that purpose. (2) The Court or the Board or, as the case may be, the Committee shall decide the juvenility or otherwise of the juvenile or the child or, as the case may be, the juvenile in conflict with law, prima facie on the basis of physical appearances or documents, if available, and send him to the observation home or in jail. (3) 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 the 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. In case exact assessment of the age cannot be done, the Court or the Board or, as the case may be, the Committee, for the reasons to be recorded by them, may, if considered necessary, give benefit to the child or juvenile by considering his/her age on lower side within the margin of one year, and, while passing orders in such case shall, after taking into consideration such evidence as may be available, or the medical opinion, as the case may be, record a finding in respect of his age and either of the evidence specified in any of the clauses (a)(i), (ii),(iii) or in the absence whereof, clause (b) shall be the conclusive proof of the age as regards such child or the juvenile in conflict with law. (4) If the age of a juvenile or child or the juvenile in conflict with law is found to be below 18 years on the date of offence, on the basis of any of the conclusive proof specified in sub-rule (3), the Court or the Board or, as the case may be, the Committee shall in writing pass an order stating the age and declaring the status of juvenility or otherwise, for the purpose of the Act and these rules and a copy of the order shall be given to such juvenile or the person concerned. (5) Save and except where, further inquiry or otherwise is required, inter alia, in terms of section 7-A, section 64 of the Act and these rules, no further inquiry shall be conducted by the Court or the Board after examining and obtaining the certificate or any other documentary proof referred to in sub-rule (3) of this rule. (6) The provisions contained in this rule shall also apply to those disposed off cases, where the status of juvenility has not been determined in accordance with the provisions contained in sub-rule (3) and the Act, requiring dispensation of the sentence under the Act for passing appropriate order in the interest of the juvenile in conflict with law.” 7. The decision of the Apex court in Shah Nawaz vs. State of Uttar Pradesh [ AIR 2011 SC 3107 ] explains that Rule 12 describes four categories of evidence which may be provided as also the order of preference. A reading of Rule 12 makes clear that the matriculation or equivalent certificate has been given the pride of place. The decision of the Apex court in Shah Nawaz vs. State of Uttar Pradesh [ AIR 2011 SC 3107 ] explains that Rule 12 describes four categories of evidence which may be provided as also the order of preference. A reading of Rule 12 makes clear that the matriculation or equivalent certificate has been given the pride of place. In the instant case, a copy of the 10th standard mark sheet, which upon enquiry by the Deputy Superintendent of Police has been found to be genuine, has been marked as Ex.P3. The same ought to have been accepted without any hesitation. Mere delay in moving an application claiming juvenility as on the date of offence cannot defeat a claimant's right since the question of juvenility can be raised at any stage. 8. This Criminal Revision shall stand allowed. The order of learned Principal District Sessions Judge, Salem, passed in C.M.P.No.3971 of 2013 in S.C.No.95 of 2013, on 04.06.2014, is set aside. The Court below is directed to split up the case against the petitioner and refer the same to the Juvenile Justice Board.