AMOL RATTAN SINGH, J.

By this revision petition, the petitioner, Ranjit Singh @ Rana, has challenged the order of the learned appellate Court (Additional Sessions Judge), Hoshiarpur, dated 08.07.2013, dismissing his appeal filed against the order of the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Garhshankar, dated 15.04.2013, by which the present petitioners' application seeking that he be declared juvenile, was dismissed.

2. The petitioner was arrested by the police on the allegation that he alongwith two other accused had committed the murder of two persons and had committed a robbery, also destroying the evidence with regard to both the offences.

The petitioner is stated to have been arrested on 23.02.2012 and produced in Court alongwith another accused, Rajvir Singh, and is stated to have got recorded his age as 19 years with the police.

On 03.04.2012, the finger prints of the accused were taken before the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Garhshankar, and at that time also the petitioner is stated to have got recorded his age as 19 years in the Court.

As recorded in the impugned order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, even on 05.04.2012, when one Inspector Raj Kumar had prepared the certificate of identification of the accused persons, the petitioner again recorded his age as 19 years.

3. In view of the above, when the report under Section 173 Cr. P.C. was eventually submitted to the competent Court, his age was given therein as 19 years, he being charged with the commission of offences punishable under Sections 460, 201 and 120-B IPC.

Thereafter however, the petitioner filed an application before the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate on 31.07.2012, contending therein that as per his 5th standard examination certificate, issued by the Punjab School Education Board, his date of birth was 28.12.1995 and therefore, the occurrence in which he was alleged to be an accused, having taken place on 19.02.2012 as per the prosecution, he was less than 17 years of age and was therefore a juvenile. A copy of the aforesaid certificate was annexed alongwith the application.

It was therefore prayed in the application that an inquiry be conducted by the Court of the SDJM, and he be declared a juvenile and sent up for trial to the Juvenile Justice Board, Hoshiarpur.

4. Notice having been issued in the application by the learned SDJM, it is stated to have been 'hotly contested' by the State, on the ground that it was firstly not maintainable and further, was not based on actual facts, as the petitioner himself had given his age to be 19 years, both before the police, as also before the Court when his finger prints were taken.

It was further contended that the 5th standard examination certificate could not be the basis of proof of the date of birth, as it was only information derived from the school record, with no authenticity attached to it.

5. Having considered the aforesaid contentions on behalf of the petitioner as also the prosecution, the learned Magistrate firstly held that the 5th standard examination certificate issued by the Education Board could not be taken as 'authenticated proof' of the date of birth, especially when the offence committed was “double murder with robbery and destruction of evidence” qua both.

Yet further, the SDJM held that the certificate or “even a positive proof of the certificate of registration of birth ipso facto should not be the foundational basis to declare a person juvenile more particularly when such a juvenile is accused of having committed a heinous offence particularly when days or few months separated him from adulthood”.

Consequently, the application of the present petitioner, Ranjit Singh, was dismissed; though vide the same order dated 15.04.2013, the application of his co-accused, Rajvir Singh, was allowed, as his (Rajvir Singhs') date of birth, as per his school