Bharat Bhushan, J.

1. Heard Sri Satish Trivedi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Abhishek Srivastava, learned counsel for the revisionist, Mr. A.K. Pandey, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and learned AGA for the State respondent.

2. This Criminal Revision, under Section 53 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (in short Juvenile Justice Act) is directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 19.8.2011 passed by the Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Gorakhpur in Criminal Appeal No. 68 of 2011 filed under Section 52 of the Juvenile Justice Act whereby the appeal filed by opposite party no. 2 was allowed and he was declared juvenile in conflict with law and the order of court below dated 7.2.2011 passed by the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Gorakhpur in Case Crime No. 654 of 2010, under Sections 302/34 IPC and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act, P.S. Cantt, District Gorakhpur was set aside.

3. It appears that accused Kuldeep Pandey and his associates are facing trial in Case Crime No. 654 of 2010, under Sections 302 IPC and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act, P.S. Cantt, District Gorakhpur. A request was made to the Juvenile Justice Board claiming Juvenility for accused Kuldeep Pandey but this application was rejected by the Juvenile Justice Board vide order dated 3.7.2010. Thereafter the appeal filed under Section 52 of the Juvenile Justice Act was also dismissed vide order dated 26.8.2010. Both the aforesaid orders were challenged in Criminal Revision No. 4046 of 2010 (Kuldeep Pandey Vs State of UP and another) which was allowed vide order dated 6.12.2010 and orders dated 26.8.2010 and 3.7.2010 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge/Special Judge (EC Act), Gorakhpur in appeal and Principal Judge, Juvenile Justice Board, Gorakhpur respectively were set aside. Juvenile Justice Board was directed to decide the application filed by the revisionist for deciding the juvenility on the basis of procedure prescribed under Rule 12(3) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules 2007 (in short Rules 2007) instead Rule 22 of Uttar Pradesh Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules 2004 (in short UP Rules 2004). The dispute was again taken into consideration by the Juvenile Justice Board after affording opportunity of hearing as well as to adduce evidence for both the parties. The claim of Juvenility was again rejected vide order dated 7.2.2011 by the Principal Judge, Juvenile Justice Board, Gorakhpur.

4. Respondent no. 2 filed criminal appeal No. 68 of 2011 (Kuldeep Pandey Vs State of UP and others) which was allowed by Addl. Sessions Judge/Special Judge (E.C. Act) Gorakhpur vide order dated 19.8.2011 and the claim of Juvenility was approved by the leaned Sessions Judge. This order is under challenge before this Court.

5. Learned counsel for the revisionists has challenged the impugned order dated 19.8.2011 on the ground that two different High School Mark sheets/Certificate of the same accused are available on record. This discrepancy has not been explained by the accused claiming Juvenility as both the High school Mark sheets/Certificates disclose two different dates of birth. It has been argued on behalf of the revisionist that the connecting evidence including the Voter I.D. List, Pan Card, Family Register as well as the Bank Account Opening Form, disclose the various dates of birth of accused (respondent no. 2).

6. Learned counsel for the revisionist has further contended that learned Sessions Judge has failed to take into consideration the provisions of 'U.P. Rules 2004' while deciding the claim of juvenility of respondent no. 2.

7. To the contrary, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 2 has submitted that the impugned order is just, valid and legal. He has also drawn the attention of the Court towards the parameters of revisional jurisdiction arguing that the impugned order of learned Sessions Judge can o