The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of Rule 12(3)(b) of the Juvenile Justice Act in determining the age of the accused and whether he should be considered a juvenile or an adult.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State as well as learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2.

2. This revision application has been preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 25.01.2017 passed by 10th Additional Sessions Judge, Saran at Chapra in Cr. Appeal No. 47 of 2011 thereby affirming the order dated 06.07.2011 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Chapra (hereinafter called “Board”) in Enquiry No. 151 of 2011 arising out of Taraiya P.S. Case No. 91 of 2010 holding the accused-O.P. No. 2 juvenile.

3. A brief fact of the case is that Board, vide order dated 06.07.2011, after holding enquiry, declared O.P. No.-2 juvenile on the basis of Medical Boards opinion giving flexibility of two years to the lower side of the age. During enquiry, informants side also appeared and submitted Photostat copy of certificate of Maulvi issued by the Bihar State Madarsa Education Board (hereinafter called “Madarsa Board”) in 2008, which is equivalent to Intermediate examination and as per the said certificate, date of birth of the O.P. No. 2 was 20.07.1991, whereas accused O.P. No. 2 submitted matriculation certificate issued by the C.B.S.E of the year 2007-08 wherein his date of birth is recorded as 10.03.1994. The informants side challenged the decision of the Board before the Sessions Court and the same was disposed of by impugned order holding the Boards decision correct. The learned Additional Sessions Judge observed that under Juvenile Justice Act, two years flexibility on lower side was given by the Juvenile Justice Board, which is correct approach.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the Maulvi examination, petitioner appeared in year 2008, which is equivalent to Intermediate, whereas matriculation examination conducted by the Madarsa Board is Fokania so that he had appeared in the examination in the year 2006 and the date of birth recorded in the certificate of Maulvi examination on the basis of Fokania, is 20.07.1991. He again appeared in Matriculation examination through CBSE in the year 2007-08 and in that certificate, his age is mentioned as 16.03.1994.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in any view of the matter, the Board did not enter into enquiry regarding the genuineness of the certificate issued by the Madarsa Board, however, it constituted a Medical Board. Medical Board examined accused on 28.05.2011 and found his age in between 20-21 years and the occurrence is dated 31.08.2010, so the accused was examined after lapse of 09 months from the date of occurrence. So on the alleged date of occurrence, his age becomes 19 years+ so two years lower side and 20 years+ so two years higher side as per Rule 12(3)(b) of the Bihar Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rule, 2007 and the said rule would be applicable in the present case as the occurrence is of the year 2010. The Board has only jurisdiction to give benefit to the child or a juvenile considering his age only on lower side within the margin of one year only and not more than that. But in the present case, margin of two years has been given. If as per the said rule, only one year on lower side giving benefit of margin has been considered on lower side to the assessment of age done by the Medical Board then O.P. No. 2 becomes 18 years and above.

6. Contrary to that, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the O.P. No. 2, submits that in the revisional jurisdiction, the court has limited jurisdiction, only in case of glaring miscarriage of justice, the court would intervene in the finding of the Board/Sessions court. Moreover, in case of a radiological examination, on the basis of which his age is ascertained two years margin on lower side is given, so the Board has correctly ascertained it after holding enquiry as per Rule and finding the accused less than 18 years, declared him juvenile.

7. Having considered rival submissions and on perusal of record, the Court finds that O.P. No. 2 i