Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 2181 (RAJ)

Suraj Bhan v. State of Rajasthan

2017-10-10

PANKAJ BHANDARI

body2017
JUDGMENT : Pankaj Bhandari, J. Petitioner through his natural guardian has preferred this revision petition aggrieved by judgment and order dated 07.03.2014 passed by District and Sessions Judge, Nagaur, whereby the Court below has quashed and set aside the judgment passed by the Juvenile Justice Board Nagaur, vide order dated 26.10.2013 has declared the petitioner as a major. 2. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that the Juvenile Justice Board placed reliance on the Board certificate to declares the petitioner as a juvenile. The Appellate Court placed reliance on the school admission application and on the basis of the said document, considered the date of birth as 04.04.1993 and declare the petitioner as a major. 3. It is argued that under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 and the rules provided therein, as per Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules for determining the age, the matriculation or equivalent certificates is to be considered if available, and in the absence whereof certificate from the school first attended is to be considered. 4. Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on "Kumbha Ram and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and Anr." S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1051/2009 decided on 17.11.2016 and "Anand and Anr v. State and Anr." S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 159/2016 decided by this Court on 18.11.2016. 5. Counsel for the respondent No. 2 has opposed the revision petition. His contention is that the date of birth in the application form at the time of admission is 04.04.1993. It is contended that the date of birth was changed to 12.12.1995 in the year, 2000 and, thereafter, it continued to remain as 12.12.1995 and was ultimately entered in the Board Certificate in accordance with the report submitted by the School. 6. It is contended that if there is a dispute between the date of birth mentioned in the school application form and that mentioned in the Board Certificate. The Court is required to consider the school application from which was initially submitted. 7. Counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on "Ajay Legha v. State of Rajasthan" S.B. Criminal Revision No. 176/2017 decided by Rajasthan High Court Jodhpur on 20.04.2017. 8. This Court was ceased with a similar controversy in "Anand and Anr v. State and Anr." and "Kumbha Ram and Ors. 7. Counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on "Ajay Legha v. State of Rajasthan" S.B. Criminal Revision No. 176/2017 decided by Rajasthan High Court Jodhpur on 20.04.2017. 8. This Court was ceased with a similar controversy in "Anand and Anr v. State and Anr." and "Kumbha Ram and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and Anr." (supra) The Court dealt with Rule 12 of the Rules and has held that if a board certificate is available, the Court is not required to consider the school record. The above judgments were delivered placing reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in "Parag Bhati v. State of U.P. 2016 Cr.L.R.(SC) 492" and "Ashwani Kumar Saxena v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2013)1 SCC (Cri.) 594". 9. In the Present case in hand except the application form, all the documents of the school mentions the date of birth as 12.12.1995 and the same date is mentioned in the Board Certificate. There is no dispute as to genuinity of Board Certificate. 10. The Appellate Court has committed a grave error in law on relying on the application form when the Board certificate was available. The impugned order therefore deserves to be and is accordingly quashed and set aside and the order passed by the Juvenile Justice Board is upheld and respondent No. 2 is considered as a Juvenile. 11. The Revision Petition is, accordingly, allowed.