1. This criminal revision is filed under section 53 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (now repealed herein after as the 'Act') and is directed against the order passed by learned Special Judge under NDPS Act, Neemuch in Special Sessions Trial No.28/2015 dated 8.3.2016, whereby, learned Special Judge held that on the date of offence i.e. 28.6.2015, age of the applicant was above 18 years and therefore, it was held by the Special Judge that his trial would be held under the provisions of CrPC.

2. The relevant facts for disposal of this revision are that an order under section 7A of repealed Act was filed by the present applicant before the learned Special Judge, which was decided by the Special Judge by the impugned order.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that as per provisions of section 7A of repealed 'Act' and rule 12 of Juvenile of Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, only the age, as mentioned in the record of school should be taken into consideration. When such record is available, the assessment of age by medical examination should not have been carried out, however, according to him in this case ossification test was conducted, in which, age of the present applicant was found to be 19 to 21 years and on the basis of this report, learned Special Judge held that on 28.6.2015 - on the date of occurrence, she was above 18 years of age.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble apex Court in the case of Ashwani Kumar Saxena v. State of M.P. [2013(1) JLJ 69=2012(9) SCC 750], and in case of Rakesh and others v. State of M.P. [2015(I) MPWN 42].

5. In case of Ashwani Kumar Saxena (supra), Hon'ble apex Court observed in para 4 of the judgment that :-

“34. Age determination inquiry contemplated under the J.J. 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 J.J. Board or a Committee functioning under the J.J. 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 J.J. Board or the Committee need to go for medical report for age determination.”

6. Learned counsel for the applicant also placed reliance on order passed in Criminal Revision No.322/2015 dated 16.7.2015, reported in 2015(III) MPWN 65=2015 (4) CDFC 1859 (M.P.) Aasendra v. State of M.P. This Court observed that, if the documents pertaining to school record were not doubtful or found forged, ossification test was not called for as held by Ashwini Kumar Saxena (supra).

7. After repeal of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 by the new Act - Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 the situation is entirely different. The provisions of rule 12 of Rules 2007 were incorporated in section 94 of the new Act, which may be reproduced as under :-

“94.(I) Where, it is obvious to the Committee or the Board, based on the appearance of the person brought before it under any of the provisions of this Act (other than for the purpose of giving evidence) that the said person is a child, the Committee or the Board shall record such observation stating the age of the child as nearly as may be and proceed with the inquiry under section 14 or section 36, as the case may be, without waiting for further confirmation of the age.

(2) In case, the Committee or the Board has reasonable grounds for doubt regarding whether the person brought before it is a child or not, the Committee or