JUDGMENT : PRASHANT KUMAR, J. 1. This revision application is directed against the orders dated 31.08.2015 and 06.10.2015 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge XV, Dhanbad in S.T. No. 292/2015, whereby and where under he rejected the application of the petitioner filed under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2000 for declaring him juvenile. 2. It appears that in the aforesaid sessions trial, the petitioner has filed an application for declaring him juvenile on the basis of School Certificate. It further appears that in course of inquiry, the learned court below called for the School Admission Register. The School Admission Register was brought by the Principal, Mahatma Gandhi Smarak Middle School, Bhulan Barari, Dhanbad and the same was proved by him as Ext.1. While proving the same, the Principal stated that the date of birth of the petitioner is 12.10.1997. However, the learned Sessions Judge after going through the Ext.1 found that the name of the petitioner was written at serial no. 8, which is the last name in the said admission register. He further found that the petitioner was admitted in the school on 05.01.2003. He then found that on 05.01.2003, altogether three students admitted in the school including this petitioner. But in case of other two students, the signature of the Headmaster is different with that of the signature of the Headmaster made against the admission of this petitioner. Considering the aforesaid discrepancy in the admission register, he prima facie come to the conclusion that there is some manipulation in the admission register, therefore, the learned court below directed for medical examination of the petitioner by the Medical Board. It appears from the order Cr. Revision No. 1373 of 2015 dated 06.10.2015 that the Medical Board after examining the petitioner reported that the petitioner had completed 20 years on 10.09.2015. The occurrence took place on 16.04.2015. Thus, on the date of occurrence, petitioner was not juvenile. Accordingly, the court below rejected the application of the petitioner. 3. Sri Pratuish Lala, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once school certificate has been filed, then the court below has no other option but to accept the same and declare the petitioner as juvenile. He further submits that for that purpose, it is not open for the court to make inquiry. 3. Sri Pratuish Lala, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once school certificate has been filed, then the court below has no other option but to accept the same and declare the petitioner as juvenile. He further submits that for that purpose, it is not open for the court to make inquiry. He submits that as per the provisions of law, the direction of the learned court below for medical examination of the petitioner is illegal. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ashwani Kumar Saxena vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2012) 9 SCC 750 , Shah Nawaz vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, (2011) 13 SCC 751 and Ranjeet Goswami vs. State of Jharkhand and Another, (2013) 4 JBCJ 96 (SC). 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Jai Kumar vs. State of U.P. and Another, (2016) 1 East Cr.Cases 249 (All.) and submitted that the orders passed by the learned court below is against the law, therefore, the same cannot be sustained. 5. On the other hand, Sri Rakesh Kumar, learned Additional P.P. submitted that the judgments relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner has no application in the facts of this case, because in those cases, there is nothing to show that the school certificate filed by the accused were fabricated and/or manipulated. He further submits that in this case, the learned court below after examining the admission register gave a finding that the petitioner obtained certificate by making manipulation in the admission register of the school. Accordingly, it is submitted that the aforesaid judgments have of no help of the petitioner. 6. Having heard the submissions, I have gone through the records of the case. 7. From perusal of the impugned order dated 31.08.2015, it is clear that the learned court below after examining the admission register gave a finding that on 05.01.2003, three students including the petitioner were admitted in the school, whose names were at serial nos. 6,7 and 8. The court below had further stated that the name of the petitioner is at serial no. 8. Thereafter, no student admitted in the school. The court below had further given a finding that there is manipulation in the admission register. 6,7 and 8. The court below had further stated that the name of the petitioner is at serial no. 8. Thereafter, no student admitted in the school. The court below had further given a finding that there is manipulation in the admission register. Petitioner has annexed the extract of the admission register (Ext.1) as Annexure-3/1 to this revision application. From perusal of the same, I find that the signature of the Headmaster at serial no. 6 and 7 is different from the signature of the Headmaster made at serial no. 8. Thus, I find that the conclusion of the learned court below is correct. 8. In Ashwani Kumar Saxena vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (Supra) at paragraph no. 34, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has stated that in case, 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. Thus, in view of the aforesaid judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, if any court finds that there is some fabrication and/or manipulation in the documents produced in support of age of the accused then it is open for the court to refer the matter to the medical board for age determination of the accused. Under the said circumstance , I find no illegality in the aforesaid impugned orders passed by the learned court below. 9. So far judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shah Nawaz vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another and Ranjeet Goswami vs. State of Jharkhand and Another (Supra) are concerned, I find that the facts of those cases are different from fact of this case. In those cases, genuineness of the certificate has not been challenged, where as in this case, learned court below after perusing the admission register come to the conclusion that the certificate and/or admission register has been manipulated. Thus, the ratio decided in the said judgments have no application in the facts of this case. So far the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Cr. Revision No. 1373 of 2015 Allahabad High Court in Jai Kumar vs. State of U.P. and Another (Supra) is concerned, the ratio decided in that case is not applicable in this case. 10. In view of the discussions made above, I find no merit in this revision application. Accordingly, this revision application is dismissed.