JUDGMENT : RAVI NATH VERMA, J. Challenge in this revision application filed under Section 53 of Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) is to the order dated 12.01.2016 passed by learned Special Judge (POCSO)-cum-Additional Sessions Judge, Simdega in Miscellaneous (POCSO)Case no. 09 of 2015 instituted under Section 376(G) of I.P.C. and Section 4 of POCSO Act, 2012 whereby and whereunder the petition filed by the petitioner for declaring him juvenile has been rejected. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel representing the State. 3. The facts, which is relevant for the proper adjudication of this revision application, in short, is that on the basis of the statement of one Subhadra Kumari, Kersai P.S. Case no. 12 of 2015 was instituted under the provisions as indicated above with the allegation that the informant had gone to Chapabari village to see ‘Dashahara’ fair on the last night with her friend and when she was coming back in the morning, the accused persons Anjan Ekka and Rohan Minj caught her and tried to took her to some other place but her friend and cousin brother objected and tried to save her but they were threatened by the accused persons. It is also alleged that the two accused after committing rape upon her fled away. It is also alleged that her friend and one cousin brother brought the villagers, whereafter the two accused persons were caught by the villagers and the present case was lodged. 4. After investigation, the police submitted the charge-sheet and, accordingly, cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the court of sessions. Before the court of Additional Sessions Judge-Simdega, the petitioner claiming himself as juvenile filed a petition for declaring him a juvenile. The court after an inquiry as provided in the Act after recording the statement of witnesses, passed the order impugned rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for declaring him juvenile and held that in the light of Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice Rules 2007, the provisional certificate of Secondary Examination is not covered and the said certificate cannot be considered for the purpose of determining the age of this petitioner and other co-accused. Hence, this revision. 5. Hence, this revision. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner assailing the order impugned as perverse and bad in law seriously contended that the court below without appreciating the Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice Rules, 2007 (in short ‘the Rules’) in right perspective passed the order impugned without following the mandates given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case Ashwani Kumar Saxena Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in 2012 (4) East Cr C 163 (SC) : (2012) 9 SCC 750 . It was also submitted that the court while making an inquiry for the determination of the age of the accused has to consider the matriculation certificate or equivalent certificate, if available, as the first evidence and in absence whereof only, the court can rely on the birth certificate issued by the School or the subsequent stages prescribed in the aforesaid Rule but the court without considering the provisional certificate of Secondary Examination issued by the Jharkhand Academic Council, examined the parents of the petitioner and held that the provisional certificate of the Secondary Examination is not covered and cannot be considered for the purposes of determining the age of the petitioner. 6. Per contra, the learned counsel representing the State submitted that the court below after proper enquiry has rightly rejected the prayer of the petitioner for declaring him as juvenile and no interference is required in the order impugned. 7. Before I enter into the veils of submissions of both the counsels, a reference of Section 7-A of the Act, 2000 and Rule 12 of the Rules, 2007 are necessary for the proper adjudication of the issue involved in this revision application. 7. Before I enter into the veils of submissions of both the counsels, a reference of Section 7-A of the Act, 2000 and Rule 12 of the Rules, 2007 are necessary for the proper adjudication of the issue involved in this revision application. “7-A. 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 on 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 order, and the sentence if any, passed by a court shall be deemed to have no effect.” “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 or 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. (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. and, while passing order 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 of 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 7-A, Section 64 of the Act and these Rules, no further inquiry shall be conducted by the court or the Board after examining and obtaining the certificate or any other documentary proof referred to in sub-rule (3) of this Rule. (6) The provisions contained in this Rule shall also apply to hose 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.” 8. The above two provisions obliges the court only to make an inquiry and the procedure, which has to be followed for inquiry for determining the age of an accused, is given under Rule 12. The age determination inquiry contemplated under the above two provisions enables the court to seek evidence and in that process, the court has to follow the procedure prescribed in sub-rule (3) of Rule 12. The court in process of determining the age has to first obtain the matriculation or equivalent certificate, if available, and only in absence of the matriculation or equivalent certificate, the court needs to obtain date of birth certificate from the school first attended other than a play school and only thereafter, the court needs to obtain the birth certificate given by a corporation or a municipal authority or a Panchayat (not an affidavit but certificates or documents). The question of obtaining medical opinion from a duly constituted Medical Board arises only if the abovementioned documents are not available. 9. The question of obtaining medical opinion from a duly constituted Medical Board arises only if the abovementioned documents are not available. 9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ashwani Kumar Saxena (supra) while considering the similar issue of age determination of a juvenile held in paragraph-34 and 35 as follows :- “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. 35. We have come across several cases in which the trial courts have examined a large number of witnesses on either side including the conduct of ossification test and calling for odontology report, even in cases, where matriculation or equivalent certificate, the date of birth certificate from the school last or first attended, the birth certificate given by a corporation or a municipal authority or a Panchayat are made available. We have also come across cases where even the courts in the large number of cases express doubts over certificates produced and carry on detailed probe which is totally unwarranted.” 10. In the instant case, the court below has not followed the mandates given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above case and refused to rely on the provisional certificate of secondary examination granted by the Jharkhand Academic Council, Ranchi. The provisional certificate of secondary examination issued by Jharkhand Academic Council is equivalent to the matriculation certificate as contemplated in sub-rule (3) (a) (i) of Rule 12 of Rules, 2007. 11. The provisional certificate of secondary examination issued by Jharkhand Academic Council is equivalent to the matriculation certificate as contemplated in sub-rule (3) (a) (i) of Rule 12 of Rules, 2007. 11. In view of the discussions made above, since the court below has not considered the claim of the petitioner in the light of Rule 12 of the Rules, 2007, this revision application is, hereby, allowed and the impugned order dated 12.01.2016 passed by the Special Judge (POCSO)-cum-Additional Sessions Judge, Simdega in Miscellaneous (POCSO) Case no. 09 of 2015 is, hereby, set aside. The matter is remitted to the court concerned to decide the age of the petitioner afresh in the light of the discussions made above. Revision allowed.