Hon’ble Kalimullah Khan, J.—This criminal revision under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by accused Mukesh s/o Natthu r/o Village-Kanhua, P.S.-Gunnaur, District-Budaun (juvenile) through his father namely Natthu s/o Siyaraam, challenging the legality, correctness and propriety of order dated 20.4.2013 passed in Criminal Case No. -3/2012 (Mukesh v. State of U.P.) whereby learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. -6, Budaun has rejected the application made by the revisionist to declare him juvenile.

2. Learned A.G.A. has received notice for the State of U.P. opposite party No. -1. Notice issued to Dharampal first informant opposite party No. -2 has been personally served but none for him has filed any counter-affidavit. Today none has appeared for opposite party No. -2, complainant.

3. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. and perused the materials placed before me including order impugned dated 20.4.2013.

It appears that S.T. No. 1082 of 2008 State v. Mukesh and others, under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 201 I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S.-Rajpura, District-Budaun is pending in Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. -6, Budaun. Trial was in progress and at present it is fixed for examination of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

4. During the course of the trial, an application was made by accused Mukesh to declare him juvenile on the ground that his date of birth is 13.2.1990 as is apparent from his High School certificate.

5. In order to satisfy itself the learned trial Court examined three Court witnesses. Sohan Pal Singh (C.W.-1) has deposed before the Court that he is Principal of Prathamik Vidhyalaya Noorpur, District-Budaun. The name of the applicant/revisionist Mukesh was registered in his school in class Three. His date of birth was noted in the said register on the basis of information given by father of the accused. Yogendra Kumar (C.W.-2), the Principal of D.A.V. Inter College, Gunnaur has deposed that he had taken admission of accused applicant in class Six and has mentioned his date of birth as 13.2.1990 in the admission register. The aforesaid date of birth of accused was noted by him in his register on the basis of Transfer Certificate of class Five which was handed him over by the father of the accused applicant. Natthu (C.W.-3), father of applicant Mukesh deposed that the date of birth of Mukesh is 13.2.1990.

6. On the basis of the aforesaid evidence learned trial Court has observed that by physical appearance the applicant does not appear to be a juvenile on the date of incident. Of course, his date of birth 13.2.1990 is mentioned in the High School Marksheet. According to aforesaid date of birth he was juvenile on 28.12.2007, the date of incident as on that date he was 17 years 10 months 15 days old i.e. below 18 years. But ultimately he did not hold him juvenile as by his physical appearance he did not appear below 18 years of age on the date of incident. No medical certificate was filed by accused applicant and there was no evidence as to on what basis his date of birth was written as 13.2.1990 in class three when he, for the first time, took admission in Primary School. Apart from it he opined that by look in the year 2013, the applicant appears to have attained the age of majority prior to 8-10 years.

7. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that as per rule 12 (3) (a) - (i) of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 the matriculation certificate would be sole deciding factor in determining the question of juvenility. Admittedly, High School certificate has been filed showing the date of birth of the applicant Mukesh as 13.2.1990 and learned trial Court has observed that in view of the aforesaid date of birth of the applicant he was juvenile on the date of incident but did not render benefit of juvenility to him. Therefore, the order is incorrect, illegal and improper.

Section 7-A of the Juvenile Justice (Care a