JUDGMENT : RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J. 1. Heard Mr. Swapan Kumar Samanta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Vikash Kishore, learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. This application is directed against the order dated 09.03.2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge - V, Giridih in S. T. No. 290 of 2009 whereby and where under the application preferred on behalf of the petitioner on 02.09.2016 under Section 7A of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act for declaring the petitioner as a juvenile has been rejected. 3. It has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner at the time of enquiry has submitted the Adhar Card as well as school leaving certificate of the school he first attended. It has been stated that the witness no. 3 was the headmaster of the school in which the petitioner has initially studying and he has proved the signature of the principal on the school leaving certificate. Learned counsel further submits that the admission register does not contain the name of the petitioner though the portion in which the date of birth of the petitioner has been mentioned has turned. Learned counsel submits that the witnesses have categorically stated about the age of the petitioner but merely because the admission register has not been maintained in proper statutory form and the author of the register has not been examined the claim of the petitioner for being declared a juvenile has been rejected. 4. Learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer made by the petitioner but has admitted to the fact that from the admission register the year of admission seems to be 1998. 5. The factual aspect of the case would reveal that the petitioner had submitted an application for being declared a juvenile and in support of his said claim the school leaving certificate and the Adhar Care were deposited. The school leaving certificate contained his date of birth as 10.03.1993. The admission register was also called for by the learned court below which has been disbelieved as the same has not been maintained in statutory form and the author of the said register has also not been examined. The school leaving certificate contained his date of birth as 10.03.1993. The admission register was also called for by the learned court below which has been disbelieved as the same has not been maintained in statutory form and the author of the said register has also not been examined. The learned court below has also referred to the medical board which had assessed the age of the petitioner to be 22-23 years but the learned trial court has not considered that the medical board assessed the age of the petitioner as 22-23 years on the date of the examination that is sometime in the month of January/February, 2017. The incident which has been taken place was of 27.11.2007. Even if the report of the medical boards is assumed to be correct in such circumstance also the petitioner comes within the definition of a juvenile. 6. As regards the school leaving certificate is concerned, since there appears to be some doubt with respect to the admission register the same was called for. Mr. Vikash Kishore, learned A.P.P., has produced admission register from which it appears that the name of the petitioner is clear and in the column of the date of birth which is at the bottom portion of the concerned page a bit of the said page has been torn up but even than the year of his entering into the school has been mentioned as 1998. The school leaving certificate was also produced at the time when the petitioner had raised the claim of juvenility and from which it appears that the date of birth was entered as 10.03.1993. The Signature of the principal in the said school leaving certificate has been proved by one Dwarka Lal Pandit who according to the learned counsel for the petitioner is the Headmaster of the present school. In either of the circumstance, it appears that the petitioner was a juvenile. 7. The circumstances enumerated above has not been properly appreciated by the learned trial court and concentration has been made only with respect to the fact that the admission register was not kept in a statutory form and the author of the admission register was never examined. It must be noted herein that the admission registers which has been produced by the learned A.P.P. reflects that the same was maintained from the year 1990 till 1998. It must be noted herein that the admission registers which has been produced by the learned A.P.P. reflects that the same was maintained from the year 1990 till 1998. A long efflux of time and perhaps mishandling of the admission register has led to its dilapidated condition but even in spite of the same the year of entering into the school is clearly visible. The circumstance enumerated above has not been properly appreciated by the learned trial court while refusing to consider the plea of the petitioner to be declared a juvenile. 8. Accordingly, in view of what has been stated above, this application is allowed and the impugned order dated 09.03.2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-V, Giridih in S. T. No. 290 of 2009 is, hereby, set aside and the matter is remitted back to the learned trial court to pass a fresh order in accordance with law and also by taking into consideration the observations made by this Court in the earlier paragraphs. 9. This application stands allowed.