JUDGMENT Pankaj Bhandari, J. - Complainant-petitioner has preferred this Revision Petition aggrieved by order dated 23.08.2018 vide which learned Court below has after considering the contention of counsel for the parties arrived at a conclusion that respondent No.2 is a minor. 2. It is contended by the counsel for the petitioner that in the initial school attended by respondent No.2 the date of birth was mentioned as 04.04.2000 and subsequently, in the other school the date of birth has changed to 08.08.2000. It is argued that the incident took place on 20.5.2018 and considering the date of birth mentioned in the school first attended the respondent No.2 was a major. Hence, the Court has erred in considering respondent No.2 to be a minor. It is contended that where there is any dispute with regard to the age of a person an enquiry for determination of age is permissible. Reliance in this regard has been placed on Parag Bhati (Juvenile) v. State of Uttar Pradesh and anr.( 2016 (12) SCC 744 . 3. Counsel for respondent No.2 has opposed the revision petition. His contention is that the Court below has not committed any impropriety in passing the impugned order as from the second school certificate it is revealed that the date of birth is 08.08.2000. Respondent No.2 had cleared his 10th school examination in June 2016 which is much prior to the occurrence in this case. Hence, the allegation that the date of birth was manipulated to claim minority has not basis. It is also contended that the Apex Court in Siba Bisoyi v. State of Odisha (2018 (1) CJ (Criminal) (SC) 56 has held that matriculation certificate is the conclusive proof of date of birth. Reliance has also been placed on decision of this Court in Suraj Bhan v. State of Raj. (2018) (1) CJ (Criminal) (Raj.)454 wherein also this Court has held that the date of birth mentioned in the Board certificate is to be considered as conclusive proof. 4. Reliance has also been placed on Kumbha Ram v. State of Rajasthan (2017 (2) WLC (Raj.) 49 decided by this Court wherein also this Court held that no enquiry was warranted when secondary school certificate was available on record. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor has also opposed the revision petition. 6. I have considered the contentions. 7. 4. Reliance has also been placed on Kumbha Ram v. State of Rajasthan (2017 (2) WLC (Raj.) 49 decided by this Court wherein also this Court held that no enquiry was warranted when secondary school certificate was available on record. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor has also opposed the revision petition. 6. I have considered the contentions. 7. As per Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act the age of a juvenile is to be determined on the basis of board certificate, if available, if Board certificate is not available then the date of birth certificate from the school and if the same is not available then the certificate from a Municipal Board or Panchayat and in absence of either of the above, a medical opinion is to be sought from a duly constituted medical board. In the present case in hand, the date of birth of respondent No.2 is appearing in his school record from 2011 as 08.08.2000 and the same date appears in the board certificate. 8. A roving enquiry is not required to be made when a board certificate is available and the date is appearing for the last five years in the school record. This Court was seized with a similar matter in Suraj Bhan v. State of Raj.(supra) and this Court taking into consideration the judgment of Parag Bhati (Juvenile) v. State of Uttar Pradesh and anr.(supra) and the other judgments cited before the Court held that when there is no dispute as to the genuinity of the Board certificate the age is required to be determined as per the date of birth mentioned in the Board certificate. 9. The Court has not committed any impropriety in considering the age in accordance with the Board certificate. Hence, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. 10. The revision petition is dismissed. Stay application also stands disposed of.