ORDER : Mr. Pankaj Bhandari, J. Revision Petition No. 1051/2009 has been preferred against order dated 03.09.2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nagaur in Criminal Appeal No.41/2009, whereby the court allowed the appeal preferred by non-petitioner No.2 and directed the Juvenile Justice Board to conduct an inquiry under Section 49 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 2. Revision Petitions No. 558/2009 and 559/2009 have been preferred by the complainant for cancellation of the bail granted by the appellate court vide orders dated 21.03.2009 and 16.02.2009 respectively. 3. Heard counsel for the parties. 4. It is contended by counsel for petitioners-Kumbha Ram & others that the appellate court has seriously erred in remanding the case for conducting inquiry under Section 49 of the Act, as from the material, which was available before the Juvenile Justice Board, it was apparent that the petitioners were juvenile at the time of commission of the alleged offence. It is also contended that the police submitted the challan papers before the Juvenile Justice Board. Along with the charge-sheet, Certificate of the Board of Secondary School of the petitioners was annexed, according to which, all the petitioners were below 18 years of age on 04.12.2008, the date of the incident. 5. It is also contended by the learned counsel that the police also submitted a medical report, wherein the petitioners were shown to be below 18 years of age. It is also contended that under Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'), the court is required to consider the Secondary School Certificate and in absence of the same, the date of birth as mentioned in the school first attended and other certificates are to be seen. In the present case, since the Secondary School Certificate was on record, there was no rhyme or reason for the appellate court to remand the case to the Juvenile Justice Board for holding fresh enquiry under Section 49 of the Act. 6. In support of his submissions, counsel for petitioners-Kumbha Ram and others has placed reliance on Ashwani Kumar Saxena v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2013) 1 SCC (Cri.) 594. 7. 6. In support of his submissions, counsel for petitioners-Kumbha Ram and others has placed reliance on Ashwani Kumar Saxena v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2013) 1 SCC (Cri.) 594. 7. Counsel for the complainant in Revision Petition No.1051/2009 and petitioner in Revision Petitions No. 558/2009 and 559/2009 has opposed revision petition No. 1051/2009 on the ground that it was mandatory for the court to hold enquiry under Section 7A of the Act. It is contended by the learned counsel that Sections 49 and 7A of the Act make it mandatory for the competent authority to make inquiry when a dispute as to the age is raised. 8. In support of his submissions, counsel has placed reliance on Kailash Singh v. Rambir Singh & Anr., 2006 (5) WLC (Raj.) 729, wherein the High Court remitted the case to the Additional District & Sessions Judge to conduct proper and due enquiry as per the provisions of Section 49 read with Section 6(2) of the Act. Reliance has also been placed on Khem Chand s/o Shri Harnarayan v. State of Rajasthan & Anr., 2008(1) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 595, wherein also the High Court directed the trial court to make enquiry in accordance with the provisions of Section 7A of the Act, after affording opportunity to lead evidence. 9. Pressing Revision Petitions No.558/2009 and 559/2009, it is contended by the counsel that as the offence pertains to Section 302 IPC, which is heinous offence, the bail having been granted considering the non-petitioners as juvenile deserves to be cancelled. Reliance in this regard has been placed on Om Prakash v. State of Rajasthan & Anr., (2012) 5 SCC 201 . 10. It is also contended by counsel for the complainant that in the FIR lodged by the petitioners, their age was mentioned to be above 18 years; in the electoral roll, ration card and the injury report also, their age was mentioned to be above 18 years, and those documents were also required to be considered by the court. As such, the impugned order directing the inquiry cannot be said to be, in any way, contrary to law. 11. I have considered the rival contentions of the parties. 12. It will be appropriate to first quote the relevant provisions of Sections 7A & 49 of the Act and Rule 12 of the Rules, which read as under:- "7A. As such, the impugned order directing the inquiry cannot be said to be, in any way, contrary to law. 11. I have considered the rival contentions of the parties. 12. It will be appropriate to first quote the relevant provisions of Sections 7A & 49 of the Act and Rule 12 of the Rules, which read as under:- "7A. 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 not 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 recognised 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 orders and the sentence, if any, passed by a court shall be deemed to have no effect. 49. Presumption and determination of age.-(1) Where it appears to a competent authority that person brought before it under any of the provisions of this Act (otherwise than for the purpose of giving evidence) is a juvenile or the child, the competent authority shall make due inquiry so as to the age of that person and for that purpose shall take such evidence as may be necessary (but not an affidavit) and shall record a finding whether the person is a juvenile or the child or not, stating his age as nearly as may be. (2) No order of a competent authority shall be deemed to have become invalid merely by any subsequent proof that the person in respect of whom the order has been made is not a juvenile or the child, and the age recorded by the competent authority to be the age of person so brought before it, shall for the purpose of this Act, be deemed to be the true age of that person. 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 of 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 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. 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 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 7A, section 64 of the Act and these rules, no further inquiry shall be conducted by the court of the Board after examining and obtaining the certificate or any other documentary proof referred in sub-rule (3) of this rule. (6) The provisions contained in this rule shall also apply to those disposed of 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." 13. It is not disputed that along with the challan papers filed before the Juvenile Justice Board, the Certificate of Board of Secondary School was annexed, wherein the date of birth of Kumbha Ram was mentioned as 18.02.1992, date of birth of Shyam Sunder was mentioned as 10.09.1991 and date of birth of Mahaveer was mentioned as 05.07.1991. It is not disputed that along with the challan papers filed before the Juvenile Justice Board, the Certificate of Board of Secondary School was annexed, wherein the date of birth of Kumbha Ram was mentioned as 18.02.1992, date of birth of Shyam Sunder was mentioned as 10.09.1991 and date of birth of Mahaveer was mentioned as 05.07.1991. The medical age examination report was also annexed with the challan, according to which the age of Kumbha Ram was less than 18 years and more than 16 years; age of Shyam Sunder was between 16 to 17 years; and the age of Mahaveer was between 17 to 18 years. 14. Section 7A of the Act pertains to the claim of juvenility being raised before any court, which means that whenever a claim as to juvenility is raised, the court is required to make an inquiry and take such evidence as may be necessary to determine the age of such person. 15. Section 49 of the Act deals with a situation when a person is brought before a competent authority under any of the provisions of the Act. Section 49 in such cases provides that the competent authority shall make due inquiry as to the age of that person and for such purpose shall take such evidence as may be necessary. 16. Section 7A and Section 49 of the Act therefore, operate in different fields. The juvenile is permitted to raise his claim of juvenility at any stage in any court, and there are instances where the claim of juvenility has been raised for the first time before the Apex Court. Section 49 however, pertains to a situation where a person is produced before a competent authority. The present case in hand, therefore would be considered in the light of Section 49 of the Act. 17. Consideration of the petitioners as juvenile by the Juvenile Justice Board is proper or not, and whether there was any justification in remanding the case is to be seen by this Court. 18. In Ashwani Kumar Saxena v. State of Madhya Pradesh (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court, in para 34, observed as under:- "34. Age determination inquiry contemplated under the JJ Act and the 2007 Rules has nothing to do with an enquiry under other legislations, like entry in service, retirement, promotion etc. 18. In Ashwani Kumar Saxena v. State of Madhya Pradesh (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court, in para 34, observed as under:- "34. Age determination inquiry contemplated under the JJ 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 JJ 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." The Apex Court observed that the court is not required to make a roving enquiry and go behind the certificates produced by the juvenile. In the present case in hand, no objection has been raised with regard to genuineness of the Board Certificate, which was produced by the police with the challan papers. 19. As per Rule 12 of the Rules, for determining the age, the matriculation or equivalent certificates, if available, is to be given precedence, and the question of referring the matter to the Medical Board would only arise when there is absence of Board Certificate, Date of Birth Certificate from the school or Birth Certificate issued by the Corporation or a municipal authority. 20. In the present case in hand, the Certificate of the Board of Secondary Education was available on record, and therefore, the constitution of the Medical Board was out of question, in view of Rule 12 of the Rules. 21. In Kailash Singh v. Rambir Singh & Anr. (supra), the facts of the case or the documents, which were produced before the Additional Sessions Judge are not available. In these circumstances, this judgment cannot be considered as a precedent. The judgment only observes that an enquiry is to be conducted in accordance with the provisions of Section 49 of the Act. 22. Khem Chand s/o Shri Harnarayan v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. In these circumstances, this judgment cannot be considered as a precedent. The judgment only observes that an enquiry is to be conducted in accordance with the provisions of Section 49 of the Act. 22. Khem Chand s/o Shri Harnarayan v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (supra) was a case where a school certificate showing different age was produced before the court. The High Court observed that the determination of age on the basis of affidavit cannot be considered to be true determination, because taking on record the evidence in the form of an affidavit is prohibited under Section 49 of the Act. 23. The facts of the present case are on a different footing. The police itself filed a challan before the Juvenile Justice Board producing the Secondary School Certificate, wherein the age of the petitioners was mentioned to be below 18 years. As per the medical examination report submitted by the police, the petitioners were below 18 years of age. 24. The documents mentioned in clause (3) of Rule 12 has been considered as conclusive proof in clause (4) of Rule 12. The Secondary School Examination Certificate issued by the Board of Secondary Education was thus conclusive proof. The Juvenile Justice Board therefore, while passing the order dated 20.06.2009 has rightly held the petitioners to be juvenile and has not committed any illegality in rejecting the prayer for constitution of the medical board, as the same could have only been constituted if the documents as mentioned in clause (3) of Rule 12 were not available before the Juvenile Justice Board. 25. The contention of counsel for the complainant that in other documents, including FIR, electoral roll, ration card and injury report, the petitioners were shown as major on the date of commission of the alleged offence, cannot be considered, because Rule 12 of the Rules does not contemplate looking into such documents. Moreover, since the complainant has not challenged the genuinity of the Board certificates, there was no occasion to refer the matter to Medical Board. 26. The enquiry as contemplated under Section 49 of the Act is not a roving enquiry and when the Secondary School Certificate, the genuinity of which was not disputed, was available before the Juvenile Justice Board, no further evidence was required as Section 49 of the Act only contemplates making of inquiry and taking such evidence as may be necessary. 26. The enquiry as contemplated under Section 49 of the Act is not a roving enquiry and when the Secondary School Certificate, the genuinity of which was not disputed, was available before the Juvenile Justice Board, no further evidence was required as Section 49 of the Act only contemplates making of inquiry and taking such evidence as may be necessary. Therefore, the impugned order whereby the appellate court has directed for holding of a fresh enquiry under Section 49 of the Act was not warranted. 27. The order dated 03.09.2009 passed in Criminal Appeal No.41/2009 remanding the case is quashed. Revision petition No.1051/2009 is allowed. 28. As far as Revision Petitions No.558/2009 and 559/2009 are concerned, since this Court has held that the order vide which the petitioners have been held to be juvenile is in accordance with law, the juvenile are entitled to the protection of Section 12 of the Act, and therefore, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the appellate court. 29. Accordingly, Revision Petition No.1051/2009 is allowed. The impugned order vide which the appellate court has remanded the matter back to the Juvenile Justice Board for re-enquiry is set aside. Revision Petitions No. 558/2009 and 559/2009 are accordingly dismissed. Copy of the order along with record of the Juvenile Justice Board be sent back to the Juvenile Justice Board forthwith. Revision No. 1051/2009 allowed/Revision No. 558/2009 and 559/2009 dismissed.