Hon'ble Mukhtar Ahmad, J.

1. Assailing the judgment and order dated 20.03.2018 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, POCSO Act/Special Judge, Anti Corruption, Meerut in Criminal Appeal No. 07 of 2018 ( Asif Saifi Vs. State), this revision has been preferred by the first informant-Mohd Yunus.

2. The facts giving rise to this revision are that the revisionist lodged a first information report under Section 376-D, IPC and ¾ POCSO Act and Section 66 Information Technology Act, 2012 against Asif Saifi and Salman. An application was moved by the opposite party no.2(Asif Saifi) claiming himself to be juvenile and an inquiry was conducted by the Juvenile Justice Board and the prayer was refused by judgment and order dated 2.8.2017 as he was found major. By the Board, date of birth mentioned in the High School Certificate was not relied upon observing that the School Certificate is not free from doubt and relied the medical report. That order of the Board was assailed in Criminal Appeal No. 07 of 2018 which has been allowed vide impugned judgment and order dated 20.3.2018 declaring the accused Asif Saifi as Juvenile. Challenging this judgment and order passed in appeal, this revision has been filed on behalf of first informant.

3. I have heard Sri Nigamendra Shukla, learned Counsel for the revisionist, Sri Ramesh Narayan Pandey, learned Counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned AGA on behalf of State.

4. Learned Counsel for the revisionist has assailed the impugned judgment and order on the ground that the evidence of the father of the accused examined before the Board was not reliable and accused was sent for medical examination in which the accused was found to be major. Further submission is that learned Board has rightly relied on the medical examination report observing the accused was not juvenile, but learned Appellate Court adopted a wrong approach ignoring the medical examination report and relied on the High School Certificate. It is also vehemently argued that the Appellate Court wrongly relied on the judgment of the Apex Court passed in the case of Ashwani Kumar Saxena Vs. State of M.P, .AIR 2013 SC 553 by saying that it was a judgment of of two Judges Bench and the coordinate Bench of the same strength had already taken a different view in the case of Om Prakash Vs. State Rajasthan 2012 (2) Crimes-113 which was binding upon the Appellate Court. In this regard, he has cited decision in the case of National Insurance Company Vs. Pranay Sethi, 2017 ACJ 2700 (SC). It is also submitted that in view of the inquiry, the date of birth mentioned in the High School Certificate is wrong. So the medical examination report was to be relied upon by the Appellate Court too. He has placed reliance on the decision given in the case of Sushil Kumar Vs. State of U.P. 2018(1) Crimes-139(All.).

5. Per contra, learned AGA and learned Counsel for opposite party No.2, referring the High School Certificate has contended that the offence is said to have taken place on 20.3.2017 and as per High School Certificate, date of birth of accused Saifi is 01.06.2000 which shows that he was a juvenile on the date of occurrence. It is also contended that in the inquiry, Board or Court cannot go behind the certificate to examine its correctness. Only in the cases where those documents or certificate are found fabricated or manipulated, the Court , Juvenile Justice Board or the committee need to go for medical report for age determination.

6. In view of submissions made on behalf of rival parties, it comes out that in the High School Certificate of the year 2015, the age of accused Asif Saifi is mentioned as 01.06.2000 and the name of school is mentioned as N.A.S Inter College, Meerut. Its genuineness has not been challenged by the prosecution. Only this much is said that date of birth mentioned in it is wrong. As such, the only point for consideration before this Court is as to when the date of birth mentioned in the Matriculation Certificate (w