PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH, J.:–This revision application has been filed against the judgment and order dated 12.02.2018 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 62 of 2016 (arising out of Nawada Muffasil P.S. Case No. 67 of 2014, G.R. No. 1570 of 2014, Trial No. 476 of 2016) by 1st Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge (Children Court, Nawada) whereby and whereunder the learned Court below has dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 17.09.2016 passed by the learned Principal Magistrate of Juvenile Justice Board, Nawada, in Nawada Muffasil P.S. Case No. 67 of 2014, G.R. No. 1570 of 2014, Trial No. 476 of 2016 by which the opposite party No. 2 was declared Juvenile.

2. Brief fact of the case is that writ petitioner was married with opposite party No. 2 on 09.06.2014 and, thereafter, she was assaulted and ousted from the matrimonial home snatching her ornaments and a demand of rupees five lacs was made. A written information was given to Nawada Muffasil police station and on the basis of said information, Nawada Muffasil P.S. Case No. 67 of 2014 was lodged against the five accused persons including opposite party No. 2. (Ranjan Kumar). It further appears from the record that opposite party No. 2 claimed to be minor and thereafter, the matter was referred to Juvenile Justice Board, Nawada.

3. It appears that on 23.06.2016, opposite party No. 2 took the plea of juvenility before the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Nawada, who split up the records and sent it to Juvenile Justice Board, Nawada, for enquiry on the point of juvenility of opposite party No. 2. After hearing the parties and calculating the date of birth as 02.02.1999, mentioned in provisional certificate produced by opposite party No. 2 issued by the Bihar School Examination Board, Patna, the Juvenile Justice Board, Nawada, declared the opposite party No. 2 as juvenile on the date of occurrence i.e., 09.06.2014. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 17.09.2016 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Nawada, the petitioner preferred an appeal (Criminal Appeal No. 62/16) before the 1st Additional Sessions Judge,-cum-Special Judge (Children Court), Nawada and the learned appellate Court dismissed the appeal on the ground that the court also do not find any illegality in the judgment of Juvenile Justice Board, Nawada.

4. It is the contention of the petitioner that in terms of Section 94(2) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, only the office / institution/ persons which has issued the aforesaid certificate can say as to whether the document is genuine or not. In this case, it is submitted that opposite party No. 2 has been declared juvenile only on the basis of provisional certificate which was produced by the opposite party No. 2.

5. It is further contended on behalf of the petitioner that opposite party No. 2 has been declared juvenile on the basis of provisional certificate which is not one of the documents enumerated to be considered at the time of determination of age in terms of Section 94(2) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 and in this connection, he has placed reliance upon a decision of this Court reported in [2017(3) East Cr. C 655 (Pat)] in the case of Mukesh Yadav@ Mukesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar. It is further contended on behalf of the petitioner that without verifying the genuineness and comparing it with the original records, opposite party No. 2 has been declared juvenile straightway on the basis of provisional certificate produced by opposite party No. 2. Law requires that only the office/agency/institution/person can say as to whether the document is genuine or not. In this context, reliance has been placed upon the decision of this court reported in 2020 (1) PLJR 91 passed in the case of Suresh Rai Vs. State of Bihar.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 appeared and filed counter affidavit and submitted that impugned order is a reasoned order and have