Honble LAL, J.–This revision petition under Section 397 read with 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short `the Cr.P.C.) calls in question the correctness, legality and propriety of the order dated 30.1.2006 vide which the learned District & Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur has dismissed the Criminal Appeal No. 413/2005 and has up-held the order dated 10.12.2005 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Jaipur holding that the petitioner was more than 18 years of age on the date of occurrence.

(2). Briefly stated, the relevant facts giving rise to this petition and necessary for its disposal are that at about 9.30 a.m. On 10.8.2003, complainant Shabbir Ali came from outside. Idris and Jafar were present there duly armed with Guptinuma Katar. Idris inflicted injury to him and then to complainants brother Tanna @ Hasan Ali. Jafar gave him a gupti blow on the chest. The injured was taken to the hospital in a Taxi. On this report, the FIR No. 130/2005 was registered at PS Subhash Chowk, Jaipur for the offence under Section 307/34 IPC. The injured succumbed to his injuries. So, the offence under Section 302 IPC was added. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed. The case was committed which is said to be pending trial. Petitioner Mohd. Idris moved an application before the learned District & Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur stating that he was a juvenile on the date of occurrence. An inquiry was conducted with regard to the age of the petitioner and vide order dated 10.12.2005 he was held to be more than 18 years of age. An appeal under Section 52 of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter in short called as `the Act of 2000) was filed before the learned Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur which was dismissed on 30.1.2006. Hence, this revision petition.

(3). It is contended that the learned courts below have not properly considered the documents about the date of birth of the petitioner and other evidence on record. As per ration card, his age is 14 years. As per the medical opinion, he was above 16 years and below 17 years of age on the date of occurrence. Where two views are possible, it is submitted, one in favour of the accused must be accepted, one in favour of the accused must be accepted. The school certificate is not an authentic document as there are two documents containing different dates of birth of the petitioner.

(4). Reliance has been placed on Saalim vs. Union of India - 2003(1) Cr. Court Cases 49, Anuj Kumar Singh @ Anuj Singh vs. State of Bihar- 2003 (2) Cr. Court Cases 118 (Jharkhand) and Ravinder Singh Gorkhi vs. State of U.P. - 2006 Cr.L.J. 2791.

(5). Learned PP as well as learned counsel for the complainant have supported the order of the learned courts below. They have placed reliance on Arnit Das vs. State of Bihar (AIR 2000 SC 2264, Bhoop Ram vs. State of U.P. (1989) 3 SCC 1, Nar Singh @ Naresh vs. State & Another (1998 (2) WLC (Raj.) 145 and Mehmood Khan vs. State (2002(2) WLC (Raj.) 380 = (RLW 2002 (3) Raj. 1810).

(6). I have carefully considered the submissions made at the bar and have perused the relevant documents as well as the case law cited at the bar.

(7). It may be stated at the out-set that the Juvenile Justice Board has discussed the entire oral and documentary evidence which has been produced during the course of inquiry which has been produced during the course of inquiry with regard to the age of the petitioner in its order dated 10.12.2005. It has come to a clear and definite finding that the age of the petitioner was more than 18 years on the date of occurrence. The learned District & Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur has also affirmed and up-held the said finding in the impugned order. No ostensible error, illegality or impropriety in the said order has been pointed out so as to call for and justify the aforesaid finding with regard to age of the petitioner in exercise of the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction of this Court.

(8). In S

Click Here to Read the rest of this document