ORDER : P.K. Lohra, J. By the instant revision petition, petitioner-Ajay Legha, who is facing trial for offence under Sections 302 & 120B IPC and Section 3/25 of the Arms Act, has assailed impugned order dated 19th of November, 2016, passed by Special Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (P.C.P.N.D.T. Act Cases), Bikaner (for short, 'learned trial Court'). Trial against petitioner and other accused persons is in vogue before Additional District and Sessions Judge No.1, Bikaner (for short, 'learned Sessions Court'). 2. The facts, apposite for the purpose of this petition, are that pursuant to FIR No.22/2016, registered at Police Station Beechwal, District Bikaner, during the investigation carried out, police has collected incriminating evidence against petitioner and other accused persons. Relying on the evidence, collected during investigation, and the recoveries made from accused persons under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, charge-sheet has been filed against all the accused persons including the petitioner before learned trial Court. The learned trial Court, thereafter, found that the offences attributed to the accused persons are triable by Court of Sessions, therefore, committed the case to Sessions Court under Section 209 Cr.P.C. 3. When trial was going on, before learned Sessions Court, at the behest of petitioner, an application, under Section 9(2) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (for short, 'Act of 2015'), was filed stating therein that, as per school record and matriculation certificate, his date of birth is 5th of June, 1998, and, therefore, on the date of commission of offence, i.e., 30th of January, 2016, he was a juvenile, having attained age of 17 years, 7 months and 25 days. The learned Sessions Court, while resorting to sub section (2) of Section 9 of the Act of 2015, directed the learned trial Court to make an inquiry and consider such evidence as may be necessary to determine age of the petitioner. It is in that background, the learned trial Court proceeded to make inquiry into the matter for determining age of the petitioner after soliciting requisite documents from petitioner and the investigating agency. It is in that background, the learned trial Court proceeded to make inquiry into the matter for determining age of the petitioner after soliciting requisite documents from petitioner and the investigating agency. The learned trial Court referred to Section 94 of the Act of 2015 and finally concluded that petitioner's date of birth, as per record of his school, which he first attended, is 5th of June, 1996, and therefore, on the date of commission of the alleged offence he was not a juvenile or child in conflict with law. With this finding, the learned trial Court forwarded report to the learned Sessions Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Nitin Gokhalani, has strenuously urged that the inquiry conducted by learned trial Court, for ascertaining or determining the age of petitioner, is not in consonance and in conformity with Sections 9(2) and 94 of the Act of 2015. Learned counsel, Mr. Gokhlani, would contend that the learned trial Court has not at all cared to examine rigor of Rule 12(3) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 (for short, 'Rules of 2007'), wherein it is envisaged with clarity and precision that mark sheet of matriculation examination should be given due credence for determining age of an individual. Lastly, learned counsel has urged that admittedly as per birth certificate, issued by Municipal Board, and the mark sheet of matriculation, petitioner was juvenile on the date of alleged commission of offence, therefore, per se inquiry/order impugned cannot be sustained. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has placed reliance on a decision of Supreme Court in Jarnail Singh v. State of Haryana [ (2013) 7 SCC 263 ]. 5. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor submits that during investigation police has collected umpteen evidence to show the actual age of petitioner inasmuch as the record of school, which he first attended, shows his date of birth as 5th June, 1996. Learned Public Prosecutor has urged that during investigation police has obtained a certificate from Tarachand Vidhya Darpan School, where petitioner studied III & IV standards, also shows his date of birth as 5th of June, 1996. Learned Public Prosecutor has also placed reliance on an application submitted by petitioner's father before Head Master of the school containing requisite recitals including date of birth of the petitioner. Learned Public Prosecutor has also placed reliance on an application submitted by petitioner's father before Head Master of the school containing requisite recitals including date of birth of the petitioner. Learned Public Prosecutor further argued that the application for admission, which bears signature of petitioner's father, clearly and unequivocally reveals the date of birth of petitioner as 5th of June, 1996. Learned Public Prosecutor has also relied on a certificate issued by Oxford Public School, where petitioner studied till Session 2006-07, indicating his date of birth as 5th of June, 1996. In substance, the submission of learned Public Prosecutor is that upto VIII standard consistently, petitioner's date of birth remained unchanged and it was shown as 5th of June, 1996 in the record of school, which he first attended, but only in his Class IX and X certificates a different date of birth is shown. Defending the impugned inquiry/order, learned Public Prosecutor submits that learned trial Court has conducted inquiry in adherence of Section 94 of the Act of 2015, therefore, no interference in the matter is warranted. Lastly, learned Public Prosecutor has urged that looking to the serious criminal delinquency of the petitioner and the school records, there is apparently no reason to interfere with the impugned inquiry/order in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. In support of his contentions, learned Public Prosecutor has placed reliance on a latest decision of Supreme Court in Ganesh v. State of Tamil Nadu [AIR 2017 SC (Weekly) 537]. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor at length, perused the impugned order and thoroughly scanned the requisite materials available on record. 7. The Act of 2015, which is a comprehensive law on the subject enacted the provisions for children alleged and found to be in conflict with law and children in need of care and protection, inspired by the standards prescribed in the Convention on the Rights of the child and the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice, 1985. Earlier, Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2000 was enacted but with the passage of time it was realized that more comprehensive law on the subject is desired, and therefore, Act of 2015 came into offing. 8. Earlier, Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2000 was enacted but with the passage of time it was realized that more comprehensive law on the subject is desired, and therefore, Act of 2015 came into offing. 8. The learned Sessions Court, upon examining aims and objects of the Act of 2015 and to ensure basic human rights of juvenile, shown its promptness on an application submitted by petitioner to direct inquiry into the matter. Therefore, it is apparently clear that learned Sessions Court was abreast about the rights of a juvenile or a child in conflict with law which emanates from clause 3 of Article 15, Clauses (e) & (f) of Article 39, Article 45 and Article 47 of the Constitution. 9. Now the crucial question which requires judicial scrutiny in the matter is inquiry/order dated 19th of November, 2016. 10. A bare perusal of the impugned inquiry/order makes it crystal clear that learned trial Court has made sincere endeavour to unearth truth about the actual date of birth of the petitioner. 11. While it is true that in the matter of ascertaining date of birth of an individual, matriculation certificate is to be given foremost consideration, but then, it cannot be said that it should be given that much credence so as to discredit all other documentary evidence indicating different date of birth of an individual. In common parlance, in service jurisprudence, a due credence is given to matriculation certificate for deciding efficacious bar of a civil servant or his age of superannuation. However, in the matter of a juvenile or a child in conflict with law, who is facing trial for a heinous offence, i.e., offence under Section 302 IPC, at times it may be unsafe to solely rely on the matriculation certificate ignoring all other evidence, which is in complete derogation to the matriculation certificate, indicating different date of birth of the incumbent. 12. In Jarnail Singh (supra), Supreme Court has considered the relevant factors for determining age of juvenile and has opined that matriculation or equivalent certificates can be relied upon as highest rated option available. The Supreme Court made this observation while considering the rigor of Section 12(3) of Rules of 2017. 12. In Jarnail Singh (supra), Supreme Court has considered the relevant factors for determining age of juvenile and has opined that matriculation or equivalent certificates can be relied upon as highest rated option available. The Supreme Court made this observation while considering the rigor of Section 12(3) of Rules of 2017. The Supreme Court has further observed as under:- "Only in the absence of the said certificate, Rule 12(3), envisages consideration of the date of birth entered, in the school first attended by the child. In case such an entry of date of birth is available, the date of birth depicted therein is liable to be treated as final and conclusive, and no other material is to be relied upon." 13. Now, I deem it just and appropriate to refer to the evidence collected by investigating agency. In this behalf recitals contained in certificate dated 12th of November, 2016, issued by Head Master, Tarachand Vidhya Darpan School, is relevant. The recital, contained in the certificate, are reproduced, in vernacular, as infra :- "Tarachand Vidya Darpan, School Jui Bichali (Bhiwani) M. 98122-64572, E-mail ID - tcvdjui2002@gmail.com Ref. No. 1211/01 Date: 12/11/2016 ^^izekf.kr fd;k tkrk gS fd vt; iq= Jh vthr@Jherh dfork nsoh gekjs fo+?kky; esa l= 2004 ls 2006 rd d{kk 3rd o 4th dk fu;fer Nk= Fkk ftldk xkao xksykx<+ ftyk o rglhy fHkokuh gSA bl fo?kkFkhZ dh gekjs fo?kky; ds fjdkM+Z ds vuqlkj tUe frFkh 5-06-1996 ¼ikap twu lu~ m0 lkS- fN;kuos½ gSA blds fjdkMZ dh izekf.kr izfrfyih layXu gSA ¼tks gekjs ikl miyC/k½ gSA** sd/- Headmaster, Tarachand Vidya Darpan High School, Jui (Bhiwani) 14. Furthermore, the relevant excerpt of the application for admission submitted by father of the petitioner and requisite entries made in admission and withdrawal certificate of the institution are also relevant, which are reproduced as infra :- IkkB'kkyk esa izos'k ds fy, izkFkZuk i= lsok esa Jheku eq[;k/;kid th] rkjkpUn fo?kk niZ.k gkbZ Ldwy] twbZ Jherh eq[;k/;kfidk th] Jheku@Jherh th eSa lfou; fuosnu djrk gwa fd d`i;k esjs iq= vt; dks viuh ikB'kkyk dh d{kk 3rd esa izfo"V dj ysa blds fy, vko';d izkFkZuk&i= nwljs i`"B ij fn;k x;k gSA bldk fo?kky; R;kx dk izek.k&i= mifLFkr djrk gawA eSa Bhd dgrk gwa fd ;g vc rd fdlh izekf.kd ikB'kkyk esa izfo"V gqvk@gqbZ ;k ugha gqvk@gqbZ gSA eSa Bhd dgrk gwa%& 1- fd eSa iUnzg gtkj :i;s dh okf"kZd vk; ij vk;dj nsrk@nsrh gwaA 2- fd eSa ikap lkS :i;s ekfld nsrk@nsrh gwa ;k ugha nsrk@nsrh gwaA lgh@& frfFk------------------------ gLrk{kj firk ;k laj{kd izos'k ua- 37 fo?kkFkhZ dk Ukke & vt; tUe frfFk vadks rFkk 'kCnksa esa & 5-06-1996 ikap twu m- lkS fN;kuos firk dk uke & Jh vthr ekrk dk uke & Jherh dfork nsoh d`"kd ;k vd`"kd & d`"kd /keZ & fgUnw dkSe ;k tkfr vFkok dchyk & tkV firk dk O;olk; & d`f"k firk ;k laj{kd dh ekfld vk; & : 2200 fuokl LFkku & xksykx<+ Hkk"kk & fgUnh eSa lk{kh djrk@djrh gwa fd tUe frfFk tks mij fy[kh xbZ tgka rd eq>s irk gS Bhd gS ;g mez tUei=h E;wafufliy desVh pkSdhnkj ds tUe jftLVj ds vuqlkj gSA frfFk 5-06-1996 eSa lk{kh djrk@djrh gwa fd mij fy[kh ckrsa ;k laj{kd esa i<+ yh gSa vFkok i<+dj lquk nh xbZ gS tks fd fo?kkFkhZ ds lax vk;k gS tks fd i<+k gqvk ;k vui<+ gSA uksV%& 1- bl tUe frfFk esa dksbZ ifjorZu ugha gks ldrkA 2- ;fn vkenu ds ckjs esa C;ku >wBk lfkcr gks tk, rks og fo?kkFkhZ nks o"kZ ds fy, Ldwy ls fudky fn;k tk,xkA izR;sd fo?kkFkhZ xouZeSaV cksM+Z vFkok ,fM+M+ ,axyks ojudqyj Ldwyksa esa i<+rs gSaA 3- fo?kkFkhZ dk laj{kd bl QkeZ ij rHkh gLrk{kj dj ldrk gS tcfd firk dk nsgkUr gks x;k gksA gLrk{kj eq[;k/;kid 15. Supreme Court, in Ganesh (supra), while relying on its earlier decision in Ashwani Kumar Saxena v. State of M.P. [AIR 2012 SC 553], quoted following three paragraphs:- "Age determination inquiry" contemplated under section 7-A of the Act read with Rule 12 of the 2007 Rules enables the court to seek evidence and in that process, the court can obtain the matriculation or equivalent certificates, if available. Only in the absence of any matriculation or equivalent certificates, the court needs to obtain the date of birth certificate from the school first attended other than a play school. Only in the absence of matriculation or equivalent certificate or the date of birth certificate from the school first attended, 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 above mentioned documents are unavailable. In case exact assessment of the age cannot be done, then the court, for reasons to be recorded, may, if considered necessary, give the benefit to the child or juvenile by considering his or her age on lower side within the margin of one year. Once the court, following the above mentioned procedures, passes an order, that order shall be the conclusive proof of the age as regards such child or juvenile in conflict with law. It has been made clear in sub-rule (5) of Rule 12 that no further inquiry shall be conducted by the court or the Board after examining and obtaining the certificate or any other documentary proof after referring to sub-rule (3) of Rule 12. Further, Section 49 of the J.J. Act also draws a presumption of the age of the Juvenility on its determination. 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. 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 J.J. 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. 16. It is also noteworthy that learned trial Court, during inquiry, has recorded statements of Head Master of the institution, which the petitioner has first attended, and the witness has proved the recitals of the requisite certificate showing date of birth of the petitioner. 16. It is also noteworthy that learned trial Court, during inquiry, has recorded statements of Head Master of the institution, which the petitioner has first attended, and the witness has proved the recitals of the requisite certificate showing date of birth of the petitioner. The statement of witness Rajesh Kumar reads, in vernacular, as under:- c;ku xokg vt vnkyr% fof'k"V vij eq[; U;kf;d eftLVzsV ih-lh-ih-,u-Mh-Vh- ,DV dslst chdkusj ceqdnek vt; ys?kk@ jkt-jkT;- eq0QkS0 261@16 fnukad 19-11-2016 dks fy[kk x;kA eSa gYQ lkSaxU/k ls dgrk gwa fd esjk uke jkts'k dqaekj iq= Jh rkjkpUn tkfr tksxh] mez 35 lky] is'kk Ldwy lapkyu] eq[; v/;kid] rkjkpUn fo?kk niZ.k gkbZ Ldwy] tqbZ] rglhy o ftyk fHkokuh gfj;k.kk 'kiFk fnykbZ xbZA eSa rkjkpUn fo?kk niZ.k gkbZ Ldwy] tqbZ fHkokuh dk laLFkkid gwa rFkk eq[; v/;kid ds in ij dk;Zjr gwaA esjs Ldwy esa fnuakd 14-07-2004 dks fo?kkFkhZ vt; iq= vthrflag }kjk nkf[kys gsrq izkFkZuk i= is'k fd;k x;k ftl ij fo?kkFkhZ vt; ys?kk dk nkf[kyk fo?kky; esa fd;k x;kA gekjs Ldwy dk izos'k jftLVj nkf[kyk [kkfjt jftLVj esa dze la[;k 37 ij vt; dk izos'k ckcr bUnzkt fd;k x;k gSA vt; dk ikB'kkyk esa izos'k gsrq fn, x, izkFkZuk i= esa tUe frfFk 5-06-1996 v{kjs ikap twu mUuhl lkS fN;kuos mlds firk vthrflag }kjk fy[kokbZ xbZ FkhA izos'k gsrq fn;k x;k izkFkZuk i= izn'kZ ih1 gS ftl ij , lh ch vt; ds firk us gLrk{kj djds fn;k Fkk] lh ls M+h rRdkyhu eq[; v/;kfidk dqlqe 'kekZ ds gLrk{kj gSa tks eSa lkFk dk;Z djus ds dkj.k igpkurk gwaA fo?kkfFkZ;ksa ds izos'k jftLVj esa dze la[;k 37 ij vt; dk izos'k ckcr bUnzkt vafdr gS tks izn'kZ ih 2 gSA izos'k gsrq izkFkZuk i= izn'kZ ih 1 dh QksVks izfr izn'kZ ih 1 , gSA izos'k jftLVj izn'kZ ih 2 dh QksVks izfr izn'kZ ih 2, gSA izn'kZ ih 1, o izn'kZ ih 2, ij , ls ch izek.khdj.k ckcr esjs gLrk{kj gSA bl fo?kky; esa vt; iq= vthr l= 2004 ls 2006 rd d{kk r`rh; o pkSFkh esa fu;fer Nk= FkkA bl ckcr esjs }kjk nh xbZ fy[kr izn'kZ ih 3 gS ftl ij , ls ch esjs gLrk{kj gSA vt; ds firk vthrflag }kjk izos'k izkFkZuk i= ij vt; dh tUe frfFk dk bUnzkt fd;k x;kA vt; ds firk us gekjs fo?kky; esa izos'k fnykrs le; vt; dh tUe frfFk ckcr dksbZ izek.k i= is'k ugh fd;k o uk gh iwoZ dh f'k{kk ckcr Hkh dksbZ nLrkost is'k ugha fd;kA xokg ds mijksDr dFku esjs funs'ku ij dEI;wVj ij Vafdr djok;s x;s ftUgs xokg dks i<+dj lquk;k rks mlus lgh gksuk Lohdkj fd;kA 17. A serious discrepancy in the date of birth of petitioner up to Class V and Class IX as well as matriculation certificate/mark sheet was not overlooked by learned trial Court but, in fact, it has made endeavour to examine the available material and recorded statement of the representative of institution, which the petitioner first attended. The change in the date of birth of petitioner at different levels of his academic career has also surfaced during inquiry and the interesting factor that petitioner has changed his educational institutions frequently is also noticed by the learned trial Court. The date of birth, up to Class V, was 5th of June, 1996 but then, abruptly, it became 5th of June, 1998 clearly shows difference of two years. Although matriculation certificate and the birth certificate produced by petitioner were taken care of by the learned trial Court, but considering the sea-change in the date of birth of petitioner from the record of first institution, he has attended, and the matriculation certificate, an inquiry is made to unearth alleged manipulation & maneuvering in the matter. As observed supra, in this behalf, the learned trial Court, summoned authorised representative of the institution, which the petitioner has attended, and recorded his statements. The witness has deposed with concrete proof about date of birth of the petitioner including the admission form filled-in by his father. At this juncture, it is also pertinent to note that the birth certificate issued by Gram Panchayat dated 15th of October, 2016 indicates date of registration as 28th of January, 2006. Two other certificates, on which the petitioner has placed reliance, viz., certificate issued by Head Master, Ramlal Academy, Alsisar, District Jhunjhunu, where the petitioner allegedly studied Class VI & VII, and the certificate of Ramlal Shikshan Sansthan, Alsisar, District Jhunjhunu, in respect of Class IX, if properly scrutinized, then it would ipso facto reveal that Ramlal Academy is shown as duly recognised institution w.e.f. 29th March, 2007, whereas the certificate issued by Ramlal Shikshan Sansthan, Alsisar, nowhere contains such recitals. Reference in this behalf, can also be made to certificate dated 4th of March, 2016 issued by Headmistress, Oxford Public School, Jind, containing following recitals. Oxford Public School Rohtak Road By-Pass, Jind- 126102 Dated- 4/11/2016 To Whom it May Concern It is to certify that Ajay s/o Sh. Ajit Singh had got admission in this school in Session 2006-07. Reference in this behalf, can also be made to certificate dated 4th of March, 2016 issued by Headmistress, Oxford Public School, Jind, containing following recitals. Oxford Public School Rohtak Road By-Pass, Jind- 126102 Dated- 4/11/2016 To Whom it May Concern It is to certify that Ajay s/o Sh. Ajit Singh had got admission in this school in Session 2006-07. his date of birth according to previous school, Tara Chand Vidya Darpan High School, Jui (Bhiwani) was 06-06-1996 and while issuing his SLC for the next school by clerical mistake, his date of birth was wrongly written as 05-06-1998. According to our school record his date of birth is 05-06-1996 (Fifth June Nineteen Hundred Ninety Six). Sd/- Stamp and Signature 18. Therefore, I feel convinced that the learned trial Court has made sincere endeavour to unearth truth and has inquired into the matter appropriately for determination of the age of petitioner. As a matter of fact, no rowing inquiry is envisaged under Section 94 of the Act of 2015 but the learned trial Court, in all fairness, has conducted the inquiry meticulously for drawing its conclusion, which cannot be faulted. 19. Thus, viewed from any angle, I am unable to find any fault with the inquiry/order impugned so as to interfere with same in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. In totality, I record my satisfaction about correctness, legality and propriety of the impugned inquiry/order. Consequently, the instant revision petition fails and the same is hereby dismissed.