1. This criminal revision is directed against the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mhow, District Indore in Session Trial No.839/2014 dated 25.2.2015 by which the learned Judge dismissed an application filed by accused Aasendra under section 7A of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2000.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the present applicant is facing a trial under sections 302 and 201 of IPC. According to him at the date of incident that is between 20.6.2014 to 2.7.2014, he was below 18 years of age and, therefore, he was a juvenile and should be tried by Juvenile Justice Board and not by regular Court. The learned Additional Sessions Judge proceeded to conduct an enquiry. On 5.1.2014, he directed the Jail Superintendent, Sub Jail Mhow to get the applicant examined by Medical Board and submit report of the Medical Board in respect of his age before the Court. The report was submitted by the Superintendent, Sub Jail on 28.1.2015. In this report, age of the accused was assessed to be above 19 years and the ossification test was done on 17.1.2015 and, therefore, the learned Additional Sessions Judge taking this report into consideration assessed the age of the present applicant as above 19 years and refused to transfer the case to Juvenile Justice Board. Aggrieved by this order, this application is filed on the ground that the learned Additional Sessions Judge erred in not deciding the age of the accused in accordance with the provisions of rule 12 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rule 2007.

3. The learned counsel for the applicant placed reliance on judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Ashwani Kumar Saxena v. State of M.P.; [2013(1) JLJ 69=(2012)9 SCC 750], and also the judgment of this Court in Rakesh and other v. State of M.P.; [2015(I) MPWN 42].

4. In case of Ashwani Kumar Saxena (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed in para 34 of the judgment that :-

“34. Age determination inquiry contemplated under the JJ Act and rules has nothing to do with an enquiry under other legislations, like entry in service, retirement, promotion etc. There may be situations where the entry made in the matriculation or equivalent certificates, date of birth certificate from the school first attended and even the birth certificate given by a Corporation or a Municipal Authority or a Panchayat may not be correct. But Court, JJ Board or a Committee functioning under the JJ Act is not expected to conduct such a roving enquiry and to go behind those certificates to examine the correctness of those documents, kept during the normal course of business. Only in cases where those documents or certificates are found to be fabricated or manipulated, the Court, the JJ Board or the Committee need to go for medical report for age determination.”

5. In the present case the school records are available, it is not alleged by the prosecution that such documents are forged. No evidence is produced by the prosecution giving rise to a suspicion that these documents are forged and, therefore, the learned Additional Sessions Judge travelled beyond the scope of rule 12 while ordering ossification test on the accused. In this view of the matter, the impugned order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge suffers from material irregularity and against the principles laid down by the Hon’ble apex Court in case of Ashwani Kumar Saxena (supra). Accordingly, this revision is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The date of birth of the accused is taken to be the date of birth mentioned in the High School Examination Certificate which is 1st February 1997 and taking that date of birth into consideration, it is apparent that at the date of incident between 20.6.2014 to 2.7.2014 he was below 18 years of age and, therefore juvenile and as such, he is to be tried by the Juvenile Justice Board.

6. Accordingly, the Court is directed to take necessary steps for transferring this case to Ju