JUDGMENT : Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. Heard Mr. Abhay Kr. Chaturvedy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Ravi Prakash, learned A.P.P. 2. In this application the petitioner has challenged the order dated 23.07.2015 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh in connection with Sadar P. Section Case no. 354 of 2015 by which the claim of the petitioner to be declared a juvenile has been rejected. A further prayer has been made challenging the order dated 31.03.2016 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh in Criminal Revision No. 193 of 2015 by which the revision preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 23.07.2015 has been rejected. 3. A First Information Report was instituted alleging therein that two unknown boys had taken the father of the informant for treatment of cattle but subsequently his father could not be found and suspicion was raised that he had been kidnapped. 4. In course of investigation, the petitioner was made an accused. The petitioner had filed an application seeking for a declaration that he is a juvenile but since no proof of his date of birth was submitted by the petitioner, a report was called for from the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Hazaribag with respect to the age of the petitioner. A Medical Board was constituted and on examination of the petitioner it had come to a conclusion that the age of the petitioner is between 19 to 20 years as on 27.06.2015. Considering the report of the Medical Board vide order dated 23.07.2015 the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribag had rejected the plea of the petitioner which was also affirmed by the learned revisional court in its order dated 31.03.2016. 5. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that if the lower age limit is taken into consideration and benefit of two years is given along with a further benefit of one year in terms of Section 12(3)(b) of the Juvenile Justice Care and Protection Act, 2007 the petitioner would definitely be a juvenile but no relaxation of age had been given by the court below or has been considered and, therefore, the impugned orders are illegal, perverse and liable to be set aside. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the case of Darga Ram @ Gunga v. State of Rajasthan reported in 2015 (2) JBCJ 61 (SC). 6. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the case of Darga Ram @ Gunga v. State of Rajasthan reported in 2015 (2) JBCJ 61 (SC). 6. Mr. Ravi Prakash, learned A.P.P. has supported the impugned orders and has stated that even if one year margin of benefit is given to the petitioner he would still be more than 18 years and, therefore, the learned courts below were perfectly justified in rejecting his plea. 7. The copy of the medical report has been produced at the Bar from which it appears that the Medical Board had assessed the age of the petitioner to be between 19 to 20 years as on 27.06.2015 while the date of occurrence is 04.04.2015. The evidence of the parents of the petitioner suggests that the petitioner was born in the year 2000. Now it is to be seen as to whether on the date of occurrence i.e. on 04.04.2015 the petitioner was indeed a juvenile and whether the relaxation in age has been properly implemented while assessing the age of the petitioner. 8. In the case of Darga Ram @ Gunga v. State of Rajasthan (Supra) wherein the appellant had pleaded being a juvenile on the date of occurrence and on consideration of the permissible age relaxation to be granted it was held as follows:- "The medical opinion given by the duly constituted Board comprising Professors of Anatomy, Radiodiagnosis and Forensic Medicine has determined his age to be "about" 33 years on the date of the examination. The Board has not been able to give the exact age of the appellant on medical examination no matter advances made in that field. That being so in terms of Rule 12(3)(b) the appellant may even be entitled to benefit of fixing his age on the lower side within a margin of one year in case the Court considers it necessary to do so in the facts and circumstances of the case. The need for any such statutory concession may not however arise because even if the estimated age as determined by the Medical Board is taken as the correct/true age of the appellant he was just about 17 years and 2 months old on the date of the occurrence and thus a juvenile within the meaning of that expression as used in the Act aforementioned. Having said that we cannot help observing that we have not felt very comfortable with the Medical Board estimating the age of the appellant in a range of 30 to 36 years as on the date of the medical examination. The general rule about age determination is that the age as determined can vary plus minus two years but the Board has in the case at hand spread over a period of six years and taken a mean to fix the age of the appellant at 33 years. We are not sure whether that is the correct way of estimating the age of the appellant. What reassures us about the estimate of age is the fact that the same is determined by a Medical Board comprising Professors of Anatomy, Radiodiagnosis and Forensic Medicine whose opinion must get the respect it deserves. That apart even if the age of the appellant was determined by the upper extremity limit i.e. 36 years the same would have been subject to variation of plus minus 2 years meaning thereby that he could as well be 34 years on the date of the examination. Taking his age as 34 years on the date of the examination he would have been 18 years, 2 months and 7 days on the date of the occurrence but such an estimate would be only an estimate and the appellant may be entitled to additional benefit of one year in terms of lowering his age by one year in terms of Rule 12(3)(b) (supra) which would then bring him to be 17 years and 2 months old, therefore, a juvenile." 9. Applying the aforesaid principle of law the upper age limit of the petitioner is taken to be 20 years on the date of occurrence i.e. on 04.04.2015 he would have been 19 years, 9 months and 7 days. The upper age limit would then be subjected to variation of plus minus 2 years meaning thereby his age would be around 17 years, 9 months and 7 days on the date of occurrence and his age would further come down if the additional benefit of one year in terms of Section 12(3)(b) is given. 10. The learned courts below had not properly appreciated these aspects of the matter while refusing to entertain the plea of the petitioner that he was a juvenile on the date of occurrence. 11. 10. The learned courts below had not properly appreciated these aspects of the matter while refusing to entertain the plea of the petitioner that he was a juvenile on the date of occurrence. 11. In absence of any appreciation of the factual and legal aspect enumerated above, the impugned orders dated 31.03.2016 passed in Criminal Revision No. 193 of 2015 as well as the order dated 23.07.2015 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribag in connection with Sadar P. Section Case No. 354 of 2015 are, hereby, quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded back to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribag to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after hearing the parties and on consideration of the materials available on records as also the observations made by this Court in the present application. 12. This application stands allowed. Application allowed.