JUDGMENT :

B. K. Nayak, J.

1. In this application under Section 482,Cr.P.C., the petitioners challenge the order dated 08.09.2016 passed by the learned Special Judge-cum-Sessions Judge, Gajapati in G.R. Case No.34 of 2015 holding that the petitioners are not juveniles on the date of alleged commission of offence by them.

2. Petitioners have been implicated in the aforesaid G.R. Case in the Court of the learned Special Judge-cum-Special Judge, Gajapati, Parlakhemundi for alleged commission of offences under section 20 (b) (ii) (c), 25 and 27 of the NDPS Act. The Case arose out of R. Udaygiri P.S. Case No.44 of 2015 dated 30.08.2015 which was registered on the basis of FIR lodged by the S.I. of Police R. Udaygiri P.S. to the effect that having received reliable information on 30.08.2015 that Gajna (Cannabis) will be transported in a Mahendra Bolero Pick-up Vehicle through Kirama-Chudanagar Road, the informant along with other police staff waited by the side of the road near village Jarigidua. It is alleged that at about 3:00 A.M. one Mahendra Bolero Pickup Vehicle having Registration No.OD-07F-7751 came on the road from Kirama side. The informant detained the vehicle for verification and found that two persons including the driver were sitting in the cabin of the vehicle whereas four persons were sitting in the dala of the said vehicle. It was further found that fourteen number of large jari bags packed with contraband ganja and two motor cycles were loaded on the dala of the said vehicle. The informant drew up F.I.R. and took up investigation. On completion of investigation charge-sheet was filed against the petitioners and some others on 04.02.2016.

3. On 26.08.2016 the petitioners filed a petition before the learned Special Judge-cum-Sessions Judge, Gajapati claiming themselves to be juveniles on the date of the alleged occurrence.

Learned Special Judge conducted an inquiry as to the age of the petitioners and by the impugned order rejected the petition holding that none of the petitioners is a juvenile on the date of alleged occurrence.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that in the inquiry into the juvenility of the petitioners the Sikshya Sahayak of Government UGH School appeared and produced the school admission register. The Sikshya Sahayak of that school who produced the original school admission register was examined as witness No.2. Further the transfer certificates in respect of the three petitioners from different schools were also filed during inquiry. Affidavit with respect to the date of birth of the petitioners were also filed by the parents of the petitioners and that as per the school admission registers the date of birth of the petitioner No.1 is 15.03.1998 and that of petitioner No.2 is 06.04.1999 and that of petitioner No.3 is 15.03.1998, and, therefore, they were all below eighteen years of age on the date of the alleged occurrence. But the school admission registers have been wrongly discarded by the learned Special Judge on that ground that the Headmaster who actually admitted the aforesaid accused persons in the aforesaid schools are not examined.

Learned State Counsel while defending the impugned order further submitted that in absence of acceptable proof, the petitioners should have been subjected to medical test by the medical board for determination of their age, which has not been done. Therefore, the impugned order suffers from no infirmity.

5. In the case of Ashwani Kumar Saxena V. State of Madhya Pradesh (2012) 9 SCC 750 is as follows:-

“32. “Age determination inquiry” contemplated under Section 7-A of the Act read with Rule 12 of the 2007 Rules enables the court to seek evidence and in the process, the court can obtain the matriculation or equivalent certificates, if available. Only in the absence of any matriculation or equivalent certificates, the Court needs to obtain the date of birth certificate from the school first attended other than a play school. Only in the absence of matriculat