Hon’ble Kashi Nath Pandey, J.—This criminal revision has been filed against order dated 14.11.2008 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 10, Meerut in criminal appeal No. 228 of 2008 (Jai Nand Sharma v. State of U.P.) by which the appeal has been dismissed against the order dated 12.8.2008 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Meerut in Misc. Case No. 308 of 2008 by which it has been declared that the opposite party No. 2, Amit Kumar and opposite party No. 3, Ankit Kumar were juvenile at the time, the offence under Sections 302, 323, 504 and 506, IPC crime No. 176 of 2008, P.S. Bhawanpur, District Meerut was committed.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the revisionist and learned counsel for the opposite parties.

3. I have gone through the impugned order of Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board and First Appellate Court. There is concurrent finding on point of fact by both the Courts below, therefore, it is not expected from the Revisional Court to interfere into the findings of fact, unless and until the finding is perverse i.e. against the evidence in record. The Revisional Court can also interfere, if there is any error of substantive law or of procedur