Hon’ble S.C. Agarwal, J.—Heard learned counsel for revisionist and learned AGA for the State.

This criminal revision is directed against the order dated 24.4.2013 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Moradabad in Sessions Trial No. 201/2005 (State v. Waseem and others) arising out of Crime No. 1073 of 2004 under Section 302 IPC P.S. Mughalpura, District Moradabad whereby the application under Section 7-A of The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’) praying that the revisionist be declared a juvenile was rejected.

2. Learned counsel for revisionist submitted that no proper enquiry was held by the Trial Court as envisaged by Section 7-A of the Act in accordance with Rule 12 (3) of The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007.

It was contended that the revisionist has filed transfer certificate issued by Hukum Singh Junior High School, Nai Majohi, Peetal Nagari, Moradabad of the year 2001 wherein the date of birth of the revisionist Waseem was mentioned as 30.1.1988. Two other witnesses Sanjeev Kumar Sharma and Mohd. Fahim were also examined on behalf of the revisionist.

3. The application was rejected by the Trial Court on the ground that no evidence was led to show the date of birth of the revisionist at the time when he was first admitted in the school. It was contended that no medical examination of the revisionist was conducted to ascertain his age.

Section 7-A (1) of the Act provides as under :

“Section 7-A Procedure to be followed when claim of juvenility is raised before any Court.—(1) Whenever a claim of juvenility is raised before any Court or a Court is of the opinion that an accused person was a juvenile on the date of commission of the offence, the Court shall make an enquiry, take such evidence as may be necessary (but not an affidavit) so as to determine the age of such person, and shall record a finding whether the person is a juvenile or a child or not, stating his age as nearly as may be :

Provided that a claim of juvenility may be raised before any Court and it shall be recognised at any stage, even after final disposal of the case, and such claim shall be determined in terms of the provisions contained in this Act and the rules made thereunder, even if the juvenile has ceased to be so on or before the date of commencement of this Act.”

4. It is clear from the aforesaid provision that when an application is filed before any Court raising questions of juvenility of an accused, the Court shall make an enquiry, take such evidence as may be necessary (but not an affidavit) so as to determine the age of such person, and shall record a finding whether the person is a juvenile or a child or not, stating his age as nearly as may be.

5. From the aforesaid provision, it is apparent that the Court has to conduct an independent and thorough enquiry and is not guided only by the evidence adduced by a party. If the Trial Court is not satisfied with the evidence produced on behalf of the accused, and wanted a date of birth recorded in the school first attended or a Madarsa as in the instant case, the Trial Court was at liberty to summon all such witnesses who might be acquainted with the date of birth of the revisionist, but the Trial Court did not undertake any such exercise.

Rule 12 (3) provides as under :

12 (3) Procedure to be followed in determination of Age.—

3. In every case concerning a child or juvenile in conflict with law, the age determination inquiry shall be conducted by the Court or the Board or, as the case may be, the Committee by seeking evidence by obtaining

(a) (i) the matriculation or equivalent certificates, if available, and in the absence whereof ;

(ii) the date of birth certificate from the school (other than a play school) first attended, and in the absence whereof ;

(iii) the birth certificate given by a corporation or a municipal authority or a Panchayat ;

(b) and only in the absence of either (i),