JUDGMENT : Sandeep Mehta, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 2. By way of the instant revision petition, the accused petitioner has approached this Court being aggrieved of the order dated 2.9.2015 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sujangarh, District Churu rejecting the application filed on his behalf under Sections 7 and 7A of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (for short, "J.J. Act") and turning down the prayer made by the petitioner for treating him to be a juvenile on the date of incident. 3. The incident in the case at hand took place on 12.6.2014. The police filed a charge-sheet against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 302, 201 and 498A IPC. The petitioner filed an application under the provisions of JJ Act setting up a case that his date of birth as entered in the school where he was first admitted was 25.8.1996 and as such, he was below 18 years of age on the date of commission of crime and hence, should be treated as a juvenile. The said application was dismissed by the learned trial Court by order dated 2.9.2015. The petitioner has approached this Court by way of the instant revision assailing the above order. 4. Mr. Shambhoo Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that contemporaneous school record from the school where the petitioner was first admitted was proved at the inquiry. The petitioner’s date of birth is entered as 25.8.1996 in the school record which was prepared way back in the year 2002 and as such, in view of the mandatory language of Rule 12(3)(a)(ii) of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 (for short, "J.J. Rules"), the petitioner was entitled to be treated as a juvenile. He submits that the learned trial Court committed a grave error of law in discarding the school record and in giving precedence to the age entry made in the ration card. He, therefore, urges that the impugned order being grossly illegal deserves to be quashed and set aside. 5. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposes the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. He supports the order passed by the learned trial Court. 6. Heard and considered the arguments advanced at the Bar and perused the material available on record. 7. 5. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposes the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. He supports the order passed by the learned trial Court. 6. Heard and considered the arguments advanced at the Bar and perused the material available on record. 7. The entries pertaining to the admission of the petitioner in the Government Primary Girls School, Khuri in the year 2002 were proved by summoning the Principal of the school in evidence. The Student Admission Register was got exhibited as Ex.2A and therein, the petitioner’s date of birth is mentioned as 25.8.1996. The name of the petitioner’s father is correctly mentioned in the register. Thus, there cannot be any doubt that the entry made in scholar register Ex.2A is regarding the petitioner’s admission in the said school. The trial Court did not doubt that the entry was made qua the petitioner but chose to discard it for absolutely flimsy reason that there was no basis for making the said entry. The prosecution chose to rely upon the ration card Ex.4A for challenging the petitioner’s claim of juvenility. The said ration card was issued on 13.2.1997 to the head of the family being Mohammed Munshi Ali. The name of the petitioner’s parents is not mentioned therein. The four names mentioned in the ration card apart from the head of the family being Mohammed Munshi Ali are Praveen Banu, Gulabi Banu, Sarajudin and Hussain Ali. Thus, there was no reason for the trial Court to have correlate the ration card with the petitioner. That apart, even in the said ration card, which was prepared in the year 1997, the age of Hussain Ali is given out as 1 year. Thus, the age of the petitioner as mentioned in the school record is not very far off from the age of Hussain Ali as mentioned in the ration card. Even if the child was born in August, 1996, while filing the column of age in the ration card application form, the age of the child would be mentioned approximately as 1 year, it cannot be expected that the age of the child would be mentioned in months. Otherwise also, the age of a person as mentioned in a ration card has no legal sanctity. 8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jarnail Singh v. State of Haryana reported in 2013 (2) WLC (SC) Cri. Otherwise also, the age of a person as mentioned in a ration card has no legal sanctity. 8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jarnail Singh v. State of Haryana reported in 2013 (2) WLC (SC) Cri. 189 : 2013 (3) SCC (Cri.) 302, has conclusively held that the provisions of the J.J. Act are mandatory while deciding the claim of juvenility. The clauses a(i) to a(iii) of rule 12(3) of the J.J. Rules are to be considered holding precedence in the descending order for deciding the claim of juvenility. As per Rule 12(3)(a)(ii), the date of birth certificate from the school first attended has to be given precedence over any other certificate issued by the Corporation, Municipality or Panchayat. In this background, since the school record pertaining the petitioner’s initial admission record was exhibited in the trial, the trial Court was totally unjustified in discarding the same and giving precedence to the doubtful entry made in the ration card. Law nowhere provides that the age of birth as entered in a ration card can be considered to be of any significance. The order under challenge thus cannot be sustained as being totally against the settled principles of law and as such, the same is hereby quashed and set aside. The date of birth of the petitioner is declared to be 25.8.1996 as per the entry made in his school record. As a consequence, the petitioner was below 18 years on the date of incident and is entitled to be treated as a juvenile. The trial Court is directed to forthwith send his case to the Juvenile Justice Board, Churu for further proceeding under the J.J. Act. 9. The revision petition is allowed in the above terms. Record be sent back forthwith. 10. Stay petition also stands disposed of.