Chandra Shekhar Jha, J. – Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.

2. This Criminal Revision Petition has been filed against the order dated 08.01.2021 passed by the Learned Juvenile Justice Board, Saran, in Sessions Trial No. 43/2021 whereby and whereunder the revisionist/petitioner was declared to be a major on the date of occurrence (20.08.2019) and his age was assessed as 18 years 7 months 19 days on the date of occurrence.

3. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that on the date of incident, which took place on 20.08.2019, the petitioner was minor as his date of birth appears from his school leaving certificate is 15.03.2002, which was issued by D.B.I. Public School, on 03.04.2013. It is also submitted that the school transfer certificate issued by the Education Department, Government of Bihar, dated 01.12.2015 is also showing the date of birth of petitioner as 15.03.2002 and as such, on the date of occurrence, the age of petitioner was of 17 years and 5 months.

4. It is further submitted that interestingly, the petitioner has declared juvenile by J.J.B. Board, Saran, in Darauda P.S. Case No. 188 of 2019 of District- Siwan, where occurrence took place on 27.08.2019 and the age of petitioner was assessed thereof as 17 years, 5 months and 14 days. It is further submitted that the impugned order is within the frame of patent illegality, as when on occurrence of subsequent date, the petitioner was declared juvenile how by ignoring all such evidence, petitioner was declared adult for the occurrence of previous occasion, by taking only the note of medical board finding.

5. While arguing over the subject, the learned counsel relied upon paragraph nos. 20, 21 and 22 of the judgment passed in the matter of Rishipal Singh Solanki vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. reported in AIR 2022 SC 630 read as follows: –

“20. Rule 12 of the JJ Rules, 2007 deals with the procedure to be followed in determination of age. The juvenility of a person in conflict with law had to be decided prima facie on the basis of physical appearance, or documents, if available. But an inquiry into the determination of age by the Court or the JJ Board was by seeking evidence by obtaining :

(i) the matriculation or equivalent certificates, if available and in the absence whereof;

(ii) the date of birth certificate from the school (other than a play school) first attended; and in the absence whereof;

(iii) the birth certificate given by a corporation or a municipal authority or a panchayat. Only in the absence of either (i), (ii) and (iii) above, the medical opinion could be sought from a duly constituted Medical Board to declare the age of the juvenile or child. It was also provided that while determination was being made, benefit could be given to the child or juvenile by considering the age on lower side within the margin of one year. If a juvenile in conflict with law was found to be below 18 years, an order had to be passed declaring the status of the juvenility by the Court. The said procedure was also applicable to dispose off cases where the status of the juvenility had not been determined in accordance with the Act and the Rules made thereunder.

21. On repeal of JJ Act, 2000 and on the enforcement of JJ Act, 2015, the procedure to be followed when a claim of juvenility is raised before any court, other than a Board is stipulated under section 9(2)&(3). The same reads as under –

“(2) In case a person alleged to have committed an offence claims before a court other than a Board, that the person is a child or was a child on the date of commission of the offence, or if the court itself is of the opinion that the person was a child on the date of commission of the offence, the said court shall make an inquiry, take such evidence as may be necessary (but not an affidavit) to determine the age of such person, and shall record a finding on the matter, stating the age of the person as nearly as may be:

Provided that such