ORDER Sanjay K. Agrawal, J. 1. The State of Chhattisgarh through the Station House Officer, Kota filed charge-sheet against the respondent No. 3 for the commission of offence under Section 376, I.P.C. read with Sections 3 & 6 of the Protection of Children from sexual Offences Act, 2012 before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Bilaspur. In the said Court, the respondent No. 3/accused filed an application to this effect that on the date of alleged offences i.e. 26-7-2003, respondent No. 3/accused was juvenile as his actual date of birth is 30-12-1995, which is less than 18 years of age and, therefore, he be sent to the observation home whereas case of the prosecution is that on the basis of High School Certificate Examination, 2011, date of birth of respondent No. 3/accused is 25.5.1995, as such, he was major on the date of occurrence of crime i.e. aged about 18 years and 2 months and was not a juvenile. 2. Learned Sessions Judge made an enquiry in order to determine the juvenility of the respondent No. 3/accused. 3. In the course of enquiry, respondent No. 3/accused examined witness No. 1 - Manirani Sahu (father) & witness No. 2 - Duwasini Bai (mother); and also examined Kotwar witness No. 3 - Umashanakar and he filed Kotwar Panji 1995 [Ex. 3(C)] and stated the date of birth of respondent No. 3 as 30.12.1995. 4. Learned Sessions Judge, after conclusion of enquiry, found that as per Ex. A-3C-Kotwari Punji and birth certificate (Ex. A-2), the date of birth of the respondent No. 3 is 30.12.1995 and as per that certificate, age of respondent No. 3 is 17 years, 7 months and 26 days on the date of incident i.e. on 26.07.2013 and, therefore, the respondent No. 3 being juvenile on the date of commission of alleged offences, remanded the matter to the Juvenile Justice Board constituted under Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection) of Children Act, 2003 ('hencefore J.J. Act, 2003') for hearing and disposal of the criminal case in accordance with law. 5. Questioning the said order of Additional Sessions Judge, (FTC), Bilaspur, present revision has been filed by the complainant under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 6. 5. Questioning the said order of Additional Sessions Judge, (FTC), Bilaspur, present revision has been filed by the complainant under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 6. Shri Ravi Maheshwari, learned counsel for the applicant would submit that learned Sessions Judge has failed to notice Section 7A of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (henceforth 'the J.J. Act, 2000') and Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 (henceforth 'the Rules, 2007') made thereunder, wherein the procedure to be followed has been thoroughly prescribed, when claim of juvenility is raised before the court. Elaborating his submission, Shri Maheshwari would submit that Rule 12 specially provides procedure to be followed in determination of the age and sub-rule (3) of Rule 12 is mandatory in nature and once the date of birth from the school as provided under said sub-rule is available on record, learned Additional Sessions Judge has committed grave legal error in relying upon the extract of kotwari punji register Ex. A-3(c) and Ex. A-2 by making roving enquiry and as such, order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge deserves to be set aside. 7. Shri P.K. Verma, learned Senior counsel appearing for respondent No. 3, while supporting the order impugned, would submit that sub-rule 3 of Rule 12 is ultra vires to the provisions of Constitution of India and as such, the learned Additional Sessions Judge is justified in holding that respondent No. 3 to be the juvenile relying upon Ex. A-3, the extract of Kotwari register. 8. Mr. Neeraj Mehta, learned State counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1 & 2 would submit that the procedure followed by learned Additional Sessions Judge in determining the juvenility of respondent No. 3 is contrary to the J.J. Act, 2000 and rules of 2007 made thereunder, therefore, impugned order deserves to be set aside. 9. I have heard learned counsel appearing for parties and considered their rival submissions made therein perused the record of the court below including order impugned with utmost circumspection. 10. 9. I have heard learned counsel appearing for parties and considered their rival submissions made therein perused the record of the court below including order impugned with utmost circumspection. 10. In order to appreciate the point raised, it would be proper to notice Section 7A of the J.J. Act, 2000:- "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 enquiry, take such evidence as may be necessary (but non an affidavit) so as to determine the age of such person, and shall record a finding whether the person is a 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. 11. Section 7-A of the J.J. Act, 2000 requires that the court to make enquiry under Act of 2000 and the manner of holding enquiry is provided in Rule 12 of the J.J. Rules, 2007, which reads as under:- "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 or 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 appearance 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 of 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." 12. Thus, the procedure to be followed under the J.J. Act, 2000 in conducting enquiry has been prescribed in the Rule 12 of the Rules, 2007. 13. Thus, the procedure to be followed under the J.J. Act, 2000 in conducting enquiry has been prescribed in the Rule 12 of the Rules, 2007. 13. Thus, the age determination contemplated under Section 7A of the Act read with Rule 12 of the Rules, 2007 enables the court to seek evidence and in that course, the court can obtain matriculation or equivalent certificates as provided in Rule 12(3)(a)(i) of the Rules, 2007 and if matriculation, or equivalent certificate is not available, the Court may obtain date of birth certificate from school first attended and only in absence thereof a birth certificate given by the corporation or municipality is to be followed. 14. The procedure prescribed in the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 for determination of juvenility came to be considered before the Supreme Court in case of Ashwani Kumar Saxena v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2012) 9 SCC 750 : ( AIR 2013 SC 553 , Paras 32 & 33) wherein their Lordships of Supreme Court has held that courts/juvenile Boards functioning under the Act, a duty is cast on them to seek evidence by obtaining the certificate mentioned in Rule 12(3)(a)(i) to (iii) and held as under: "30. Consequently the procedure to be followed under the J.J. Act in conducting inquiry is the procedure laid down in that statute itself i.e. Rule 12 of the 2007 Rules. We cannot import other procedure laid down in the Code of Criminal Procedure or any other enactment while making an inquiry with regard to the juvenility of a person, when the claim of juvenility is raised before the court exercising powers under Section 7-A of the Act. In many of the cases, we have come across, it is seen that the criminal courts are still having the hangover of the procedure of trial or inquiry under the Code as if they are trying an offence under the penal laws forgetting the fact that the specific procedure has been laid down in Section 7-A read with Rule 12. 31. We also remind all courts/Juvenile Justice Boards and the Committees functioning under the Act that a duty is cast on them to seek evidence by obtaining the certificate, etc. mentioned in Rules 12(3)(a)(i) to (iii). 31. We also remind all courts/Juvenile Justice Boards and the Committees functioning under the Act that a duty is cast on them to seek evidence by obtaining the certificate, etc. mentioned in Rules 12(3)(a)(i) to (iii). The courts in such situations act as a parens patriae because they have a kind of guardianship over minors who from their legal disability stand in need of protection." 15. In the later part of the judgment Ashwani Kumar Saxena, ( AIR 2013 SC 553 , Paras 34, 35 & 36) (supra), their Lordships of Supreme Court further held that Court or Boards functioning under the J.J. Act is not expected to conduct such a roving enquiry and to go behind those certificates to examine the correctness of those documents and held as under: "32. "Age determination inquiry" contemplated under Section 7-A of the Act read with Rule 12 of the 2007 Rules enables the court to seek evidence and in that process, the court can obtain the matriculation or equivalent certificates, if available. Only in the absence of any matriculation or equivalent certificates, the court needs to obtain the date of birth certificate from the school first attended other man a play school. Only in the absence of matriculation or equivalent certificate or the date of birth certificate given by a corporation or a municipal authority or a panchayat (not an affidavit but certificates or documents). The question of obtaining medical opinion from a duly constituted Medical Board arises only if the abovementioned documents are unavailable. In case exact assessment of the age cannot be done, then the court, for reasons to be recorded, may, if considered necessary, give the benefit to the child or juvenile by considering his or her age on lower side within the margin of one years. 33. Once the court, following the above-mentioned procedure, passes an order, that order shall be the conclusive proof of the age as regards such child or juvenile in conflict with law. It has been made clear in sub-rule (5) of Rule 12 that no further inquiry shall be conducted by the court or the Board after examining and obtaining the certificate or any other documentary proof after referring to sub-rule (3) of Rule 12. Further, Section 49 of the J.J. Act also draws a presumption of the age of the juvenility on its determination. 34. Further, Section 49 of the J.J. Act also draws a presumption of the age of the juvenility on its determination. 34. Age determination inquiry contemplated under the J.J. Act and the 2007 Rules has nothing to do with an enquiry under other legislations, like entry in service, retirement, promotion, etc. There may be situations where the entry made in the matriculation or equivalent certificates, date of birth certificate from the school first attended and even the birth certificate given by a corporation or a municipal authority or a panchayat may not be correct. But court, Juvenile Justice Board or a committee functioning under the J.J. Act is not expected to conduct such a roving enquiry and to go behind those certificates to examine the correctness of those documents, kept during the normal course of business. Only in cases where those documents or certificates are found to be fabricated or manipulated, the court, the Juvenile Justice Board or the committee need to go for medical report for age determination." 16. Extremely recently, the principle laid down in the aforesaid case Ashwani Kumar, ( AIR 2013 SC 553 ) (supra) has been reiterated and followed by their Lordships of Supreme Court in the case of Kulai Ibrahim alias Ibrahim v. State, Rep. by the Inspector of Police B-l Coimbatore, 2014 AIR SCW 4022 : ( AIR 2014 SC 2726 ). 17. In view of above enunciation of law that the court while making age determination enquiry as to the juvenility of respondent No. 3 has to seek evidence as prescribed in Rule 12(3) of the Rules, 2007, turning back to the facts of the case, admittedly in the instant case, matriculation certificate (mark sheet) issued by Chhattisgarh Board of Secondary Education, Raipur of High School Certificate Examination, 2011 of respondent No. 3 is available, which states as under:-- “ CERTIFIED THAT SRI/SMTP/KUM NIRMAL SAHU FATHER’S/HUSBAND’S NAME IS SRI DUWASIN BAI SAHU AND DATE OF BIRTH IS 25.05.1995 TWENTY FIFTH MAY-NINETEEN NINETY FIVE HAS APPEARED IN THE HIGH SCHOOL CERTIFICATE EX- AMINATION FROM SCHOOL/CENTRE – ADARSH VAIDI VIDYAPEETH H S S KOTA (BILASPUR)” 18. The aforesaid certificate clearly demonstrate the date of birth of respondent No. 3 as 25.05.1995 and once the matriculation certificate, which is statutory document within the meaning of Rule 12(3)(a)(i) of Rules, 2007 is available, then the Court is not required to go for other document or to rely upon other documents by conducting roving enquiry and go beyond these certificates to examine the correctness of statutory documents as provided in the Rules and, if the statutory documents is taken into consideration, the date of birth of respondent is 25.05.1995 as per matriculation certificate on the date of commission of offence i.e. 26.07.2013, then the age of accused would be 18 years plus two months and he would not be juvenile on the date of commission of offence. 19. Thus, the impugned order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge holding that the respondent No. 3 to be the juvenile on the date of alleged offence relying on and taking the date of birth recorded in Kotwari Punji ignoring the statutory document that is matriculation certificate envisaged under the Rules is clearly unsustainable in law and contrary to the express provisions of J.J. Act, 2000 and sub-rule (3)(a) of Rule 12 of the Rules 2007 and impugned order deserves to be set aside. 20. The submission of Mr. Verma, learned Senior counsel appearing for the respondent No. 3 that Rule 12 of Rule, 2007 is ultra vires to the provisions of J.J. Act, 2000 and Constitution of India and, therefore, no reliance can be placed on the Rule 12 of Rules, 2007. 21. It is well settled law that a statute cannot be declared unconstitutional unless its constitutionality is specifically challenged and if a case can be decided upon any other ground than the constitutional grounds, such as by statutory construction of the like, court must do so, and as such the constitutional validity of Rules, 2007 cannot be questioned and decided collaterally as always there is presumption in favour of constitutionality of an enactment and burden is upon the person, who challenges the constitutionality to show that there has been a clear transgression of constitutional principle. 22. The Supreme Court in case of Central Organization of T.N. Electricity Employees v. T.N. Electricity Board, (2005) 8 SCC 729 : (2005 AIR SCW 6455) has aptly observed as under: "This is precisely the principle which we intend to adopt. 22. The Supreme Court in case of Central Organization of T.N. Electricity Employees v. T.N. Electricity Board, (2005) 8 SCC 729 : (2005 AIR SCW 6455) has aptly observed as under: "This is precisely the principle which we intend to adopt. This Court must be parsimonious on the grounds on which it chooses to decide a particular case. If a case can be decided upon any ground other than constitutional grounds, such as by statutory construction or the like, this Court must do so. Despite the characteristic acuity with which Ms. Jaising argue the constitutional grounds, in our opinion, they are not ripe for adjudication, as we have been able to decide the matter on other narrower grounds. Where a paring knife suffices, a battleaxe is precluded." Concludingly, the revision is allowed. Impugned order is set aside. It is held that respondent No. 3 was not a juvenile within the meaning of Section 2(k) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 on the date of commission of offence i.e. 26.07.2013 and in consequence of this, Juvenile Justice Board, Bilaspur constituted under the Act of 2003 is directed to transmit the entire record of the trial, to the Court of Session having jurisdiction over the matter for hearing and disposal in accordance with law. Record of the court below be sent back forthwith. A copy of this order be sent to Juvenile Justice Board for information and needful action. Appeal allowed.