ORDER :

Pankaj Bhandari, J.

1. Accused Mohammad Salman has preferred this Revision Petition against the order dated 15.04.2014 passed by the District & Sessions Judge, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur in Criminal Appeal No.252/2014, whereby learned District & Sessions Judge set aside the order dated 12.03.2014 passed by the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur in Criminal Miscellaneous Case No.23/2013 in FIR No.119/2008, Police Station, Kotwali, Jaipur, by which petitioner was held juvenile on the basis of his school certificate.

2. Succinctly stated the facts of the case are that Jaipur Bomb Blast took place on 13.05.2008, accused petitioner was arrested by A.T.S., U.P. on 05.03.2010 and was arrested in the present Sessions Case on 23.11.2010. Accused had placed before the Court below his Board Certificate, as per which he was a minor on the date of incident. The accused raised the question of juvenility before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate vide order dated 21.06.2011 held the accused Salman to be aged more than 18 years. The accused preferred an appeal under Section 52 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Actof 2000’) before the learned Sessions Judge. Learned Sessions Judge vide order dated 17.10.2011 set aside the order dated 21.06.2011 and directed the accused to raise the question of juvenility before the Special Judge, Jaipur Bomb Blasts Cases. A revision petition was preferred by the State as well as accused Salman before the High Court, which was decided by the High Court on 17.05.2012. The High Court set aside the order of the Sessions Judge dated 17.10.2011 and remanded the case back to the Sessions Judge to decide it in accordance with law. Learned Sessions Judge thereafter vide order dated 11.02.2013 remanded the case back to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and directed the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate to decide the application under Section 12 of the Act of 2000 in accordance with Section 2(g) of the Act of 2000. The Juvenile Justice Board thereafter vide order dated 12.03.2014 held accused Salman to be a juvenile in conflict with law. Aggrieved by the said order, State of Rajasthan preferred a criminal appeal before the Sessions Judge. The Sessions Judge vide order dated 15.04.2014 set aside the order of the Juvenile Justice Board, aggrieved by which, accused Salman has preferred the present criminal revision.

3. It is contended by Mr. Trideep Pais, Senior Counsel appearing for accused Salman in S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.1939 of 2017 that question of juvenility can be raised before any Court and even in an application moved under Section 12 of the Act of 2000 seeking bail, the Court has to come to the conclusion that the accused is a juvenile and then alone the Court can grant a bail under Section 12 of the Act of 2000. It is also contended that it is not necessary to move an application under Section 7-A of the Act of 2000 for getting the age determined, as when a child is produced before the Juvenile Justice Court, it is the paramount duty of the Juvenile Justice Board to first determine whether the child produced before the Juvenile Justice Board is a child or not. A finding arrived at by the Juvenile Justice Board after considering the entire evidence cannot be said to be faulted on technical grounds when the Juvenile Justice Board has been enacted for the benefit of a juvenile.

4. It is further contended that the Juvenile Justice Board has summoned the Principal and Teachers of the school where Salman has studied. The Board Certificate is a document, which has to be relied upon in view of Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules of 2007”). It is also contended that merely because there is a difference in age as mentioned in the Board Certificate and the school first attended, the Juvenile Justice Board was not competent to call for the report