JUDGMENT : H.C. Mishra, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 2. This is the third round, in which, the petitioner has come to this Court for declaration that he is a juvenile. The petitioner had earlier moved this Court in Cr. Revision No. 721 of 2013, in which, he had challenged the Judgment dated 21.3.2013 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Latehar, in Cr. Appeal No. 6 of 2012, by which the learned Sessions Judge had doubted the order dated 19.11.2011 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Latehar, in G.R Case No. 517 of 2011, declaring the petitioner to be a juvenile and for the reasons detailed in the order, the learned Sessions Judge held that the petitioner was not a juvenile on the date of occurrence and had directed for sending him back to the Court of Session for facing the trial in the murder case. In the said Criminal Revision No. 721 of 2013, this Court had found that the order dated 19.11.2011 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, by which the petitioner was declared to be a juvenile, was not an appropriate order, as no enquiry whatsoever was conducted by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Latehar, while declaring the petitioner to be a juvenile. This Court had also found that the Judgment dated 21.3.2013 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Latehar, in Cr. Appeal No. 6 of 2012 also could not be sustained in the eyes of law, as the said order was also found to have been passed without following the procedure prescribed under Section 7A of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, read with Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, and accordingly, by the order dated 23.8.2013, this Court set aside the orders passed by both the Courts below and directed the learned Sessions Judge, Latehar, in whose Court the trial was pending, to decide the claim of the juvenility of the petitioner and to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law after due enquiry in the matter. 3. Pursuant to that order, the Medical Board was constituted by the learned Court below and the opinion of the Medical Board was also obtained, which opined that on 6.2.2014, the age of the petitioner was around 21-22 years. 3. Pursuant to that order, the Medical Board was constituted by the learned Court below and the opinion of the Medical Board was also obtained, which opined that on 6.2.2014, the age of the petitioner was around 21-22 years. The date of occurrence as per the F.I.R., being 9.9.2011, the Court below found that the petitioner was not a juvenile on the date of occurrence, as the petitioner was about seven months more than the age of 18 years, and accordingly, the Court below rejected the plea of juvenility of the petitioner by order dated 26.2.2014 passed in S.T Case No. 54A of 2012. 4. The petitioner again challenged the said order in Cr. Revision No. 781 of 2014. During the hearing of the said Cr. Revision No. 781 of 2014, it was found that the enquiry was made by the Court below, during which the transfer certificate of the School was also proved by the petitioner in the Court below, which was not relied upon by the Court below due to some over writings and cuttings on the certificate. This Court also found that for the valid reasons, the said Certificate was not considered by the Court below. The Court below also found that the Medical Board had given a finding that on 6.2.2014, the petitioner was around 21-22 years and the date of occurrence, as per the F.I.R., being 9.9.2011, the petitioner was seven months more than the age of 18 years. This Court, however, found that again the procedure prescribed under Rule 12(3)(b) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, was not considered by the Court below, while rejecting the plea of juvenility of the petitioner, as no consideration was made by the Court below whether in the given circumstances, the benefit of margin of one year in lower side was to be given to the petitioner or not, and without making such consideration, the plea of juvenility of the petitioner was rejected by the Court below. Thus, while agreeing with the reasons recorded by the Court below for not relying upon the educational certificate produced by the petitioner and taking into consideration the age of the petitioner recorded by the Medical Board, the Court below was directed to make a consideration whether the benefit of margin of one year in lower side was required to be given to the petitioner or not, and with these directions, the said Cr. Revision No. 781 of 2014 was disposed of by the order dated 13.2.2015. 5. By the impugned order dated 16.4.2015 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-1, Latehar, in S.T. No. 54A of 2012, which has been challenged in the present revision application, the claim of juvenility of the petitioner has again been rejected by the Court below. It appears from the impugned order that again, a Medical Board was constituted by the Court below, which was not even required to be done. However, while considering the report of the subsequent Medical Board, the Court below found that it could not be relied upon, in view of the detailed discussions made in the impugned order, which need not be discussed in detail, in view of the fact that the seeking opinion from the second Medical Board was absolutely uncalled for. 6. From the discussions made in the impugned order dated 16.4.2015, I find that the subsequent medical report has rightly been rejected by the Court below, as even otherwise, there was no doubt to the findings of the earlier Medical Board which was already on record. This Court had only directed the Court below for consideration of the report only on the limited aspect, i.e., for consideration whether the benefit of margin of one year in lower side was required to be given to the petitioner or not. The Court below has found, taking into consideration the general physical built of the petitioner, that no benefit can be given to the petitioner of lowering his age by one year, and has again rejected the plea of juvenility of the petitioner by the impugned order dated 16.4.2015. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order passed by the Court below is absolutely illegal, taking into consideration the report of the subsequent Medical Board. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order passed by the Court below is absolutely illegal, taking into consideration the report of the subsequent Medical Board. It is also submitted that the benefit which is required to be given to a child or juvenile while considering his / her age on the lower side within the margin of one year, has not been given to the petitioner, as required by the law. Learned counsel accordingly, submitted that the impugned order passed by the Court below cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. 8. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer. 9. Rule 12(3)(b) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, reads as follows :- "12. Procedure to be followed in determination of age- (1)-(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 with the margin of one year, -------- ------- ------ ." (Emphasis supplied). 10. The bare perusal of the Rule shows that the Court, Board, or the Committee, making the enquiry for determination of age, may, if considered necessary, is to give the benefit to the child or juvenile while considering his /her age within a margin of one year on the lower side, recording the reasons there for. 10. The bare perusal of the Rule shows that the Court, Board, or the Committee, making the enquiry for determination of age, may, if considered necessary, is to give the benefit to the child or juvenile while considering his /her age within a margin of one year on the lower side, recording the reasons there for. Thus, it is apparent from the Rule that it is not mandatory for the Court to give the benefit of margin of one year in the lower side to every child or juvenile. The Court has to consider the case of a particular child or juvenile, to see whether such benefit can be given to him / her or not. In the present case, the Court below, after taking into consideration the physical built of the petitioner, has found that such benefit cannot be given to him. 11. In my considered view, there is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order passed by the Court below, denying the benefit to the petitioner considering his physical built. 12. In the facts of this case, it is apparent that by now, the enquiry with respect to the claim of juvenility of the petitioner is complete in all respects by the Court below and the Court below has given the clear finding that the petitioner was not a juvenile on the date of occurrence and accordingly, has rejected the plea of juvenility of the petitioner. 13. I do not see any illegality and / or irregularity in the impugned order dated 16.4.2015 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-1, Latehar, in S.T. No. 54A of 2012, worth interference in the revisional jurisdiction. There is no merit in this application and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. 14. Let this order be communicated to the Court concerned forthwith through FAX, which shall continue with the trial of the case without any further undue delay. Revision Dismissed.