The main legal point established is the reliance on school records and the relevant legal provisions to determine the age of the accused in juvenile justice cases.

1. Heard Sri Sanjeev Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Upendra Upadhyay, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

2. The instant criminal revision has been preferred by the revisionist against the impugned judgment and order dated 06.12.2014 passed by the learned court of Additional Sessions Judge, Room No.-1, Etah in disposal of application No.17Ba which was presented by the Ghanshyam, father of the accused person Mauharpal @ Muharpal to declare his minor son Mauharpal "a juvenile in conflict with law" in Case Crime No. 161 of 2014 under Sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. and Section 4 POCSO Act, Police Station- Malawan, District- Etah.

3. The first information report in Hindi vernacular is enumerated as below:-

"The informant Ghanshyam s/o Leeladhar resident of village Dalelpur, Police Station-Malawan, District-Etah on date 04.08.2014 presented a written application scribed by Murari Lal s/o Parwat Singh resident of village Kagraul, Police Station-Malawan, Etah in the Police Station-Kotwali Malawan, Distict-Etah that applicant/informant Ghanshyam s/o Leeladhar resident of Dalelpur, Police Station Malawan, District Etah, had two daughters, named, Km. Rooma and Km. Sukhdevi, aged about 15 years and 12 years respectively. His both daughters studied at Siypur. Km. Rooma studied in class 9 and Km. Sukhdevi in class 6. On date 4.8.2014 his both daughters proceeded to school from their home. On the way, Mauharpal s/o Ghanshyam resident of Dalelpur, Malawan, Etah met and enticed away his elder daughter Km. Rooma at about 8:00 hours in the morning. His another daughter Km. Sukhdevi returned and narrated the incident. They were searching for his daughter Km. Rooma; she could not be traced out."

4. Learned counsel for the revisionist assailed the impugned judgment and order dated 06.12.2014 of the learned court of Additional Sessions Judge, Room No.1, Etah only on the sole ground of non-compliance of Section 35 of The Indian Evidence Act, 1872. No other points were raised. Whereas, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has forcefully opposed the arguments of the learned counsel for the revisionist and has submitted that Section 35 of The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 has been complied with.

5. Learned counsel for the revisionist has relied upon the following rulings:-

(i). Jabar Singh vs. Dinesh and another, 2010 (69) ACC 326

(ii). Vinod vs. State of U.P. and another; 2014 (2) JIC 72 (All)

6. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has relied upon the following rulings:-

(i). Saddam @ Sonu vs. State of U.P. and another; 2012 (1) AWC 254

(ii). Jai Prakash Tiwari vs. State of U.P. and another; 2016 (9) ADJ 627

7. Section 35 of The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is extracted as below:-

"35. Relevancy of entry in public [record or an electronic record] made in performance of duty.-An entry in any public or other official book, register or [record or an electronic record], stating a fact in issue or relevant fact, and made by a public servant in the discharge of his official duty, or by any other person in performance of a duty specially enjoined by the law of the country in which such book, register, or [record or an electronic record] is kept, is itself a relevant fact."

8. I have thoroughly perused the impugned judgment and order dated 06.12.2014 passed by the learned court of Additional Sessions Judge, Room No.-1, Etah. According to the facts which are mentioned in the aforesaid impugned judgment and order. The facts are enumerated as below:-

"The informant Ghanshyam, father of the accused person Mauharpal presented an application No. 17Ba supported with an affidavit that his son Mauharpal is minor and on the date of alleged incident, he was 17 years old and annexed the photocopies of the Transfer Certificate of class 5 and 6. According to which his date of birth was 10.8.1997. 27B objection was filed on behalf of the informant Ghanshyam s/o Leeladh