Hon’ble Bharat Bhushan, J.—Heard Mr Kamal Krishna, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr Ghan Shyam Das, learned counsel for the revisionist, Mr Ram Sagar Yadav, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 and learned AGA for the state respondent.

2. This Criminal Revision is directed against the order dated 3.10.2012 passed by Additional Sessions judge, Court No. 1, Allahabad in S.T. No. 162 of 2011 (State v. Gyan Chand and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 199 of 2008, under Sections 302,120-B/34 IPC and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act, P.S. Jhunsi, District Allahabad whereby the opposite party No. 2 has been declared juvenile in conflict with law on the basis of the High School Mark sheet.

3. The adumbrated facts of the case are that the Opposite party No. 2 is being prosecuted for having committed an offence punishable under Sections 302,120-B/34 IPC and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act. During course of trial, an application dated 15.2.2011 was, moved on his behalf by mother of opposite party No. 2 (juvenile) stating therein that the date of birth of the opposite party No. 2 was 24.10.1990 on the date of incident i.e. 30.6.2008 as disclosed by his High School mark-sheet as such he was 17 years 8 months and 6 days i.e. below 18 years of age on the date of occurrence and thus, a juvenile in conflict with law. The learned Trial Court after holding an inquiry found the contention to be correct and thus by the impugned order, declared him to be a juvenile in conflict with law on the date of occurrence.

4. The contention of the learned counsel for the revisionist is that a High School mark-sheet was not proved in accordance with law. It was also contended that the transfer certificate produced by the claimant bears Sl. No. 2470. Report dated 12.7.2011 of the Principal of Primary Pathshala Patel Nagar, Jhunsi, Allahabad indicated that name of opposite party No. 2 was not entered at sl. No. 2470.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 denied the allegation made by the revisionist. It is further contended by learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 that the report 12.7.2011 submitted by the Principal of Primary Pathshala Patel Nagar, Jhunsi, Allahabad would have no effect over the High School Certificate as n o witness was produced by the revisionists to prove the report. He further contended that the High School mark sheet of respondent No. 2 issued by the Gandhi Inter College, Patel Nagar, Jhunsi, Allahabad showing the date of birth as 24.10.1990 has been duly proved by the issuing authority. The Court below, taking into consideration the materials collected in course of enquiry passed the order impugned, which is under challenge in the present criminal revision.

6. Before entering to test the correctness, legality and impropriety of the impugned order, it would be appropriate to examine the relevant provisions under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (in short Juvenile Justice Act).

Section 7 A of the Juvenile Justice Act reads 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 inquiry, 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 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 recognized 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.

(2) If the Court finds a person to be a juvenile on t