ORDER

1. This criminal revision is filed by the petitioner being aggrieved of the order dated 8.4.2023 passed by the learned Special Judge (POCSO), District Jabalpur in SC ATR No.65/2020, rejecting an application filed by the petitioner herein seeking submission of original Aadhar card as a proof of date of birth of the prosecutrix, photocopy of which was already available on record.

2. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a Division Bench decision of High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in CRL.A.1444/2013 (Jabbar v. State), wherein in para 37, after referring to rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) rules, 2007, it is held as under:-

''37. Rule 12 of the JJ Rules, therefore, assigns, in descending order of importance, primacy, as proof of age, to (i) the matriculation, or equivalent, certificate, (ii) the date of birth as recorded by the school first attended, and (iii) the certificate of birth, given by a Corporation, municipal authority, or panchayat. No specified format, for these certificates, is prescribed in the said rules. The Aadhar Card, being a document issued by the Government of India is, in our view, equivalent - in fact, superior - to a certificate given by a Corporation, municipal authority, or panchayat. The entry, in the said Aadhar card (Ex. PW-11/H), of the age of 'S' as 6 years, must be taken, therefore, as proof of the fact that, on the date of issuance of the said card (2nd March, 2013) 'S' was, in fact, 6 years of age. We may mention, here, that a Division Bench of the High Court of Madras, in Panneerselvam v. Inspector of Police, MANU/TN/1054/2014, opined that the Aadhar Card could not satisfy the requisites of rule 7 of the JJ rules, as proof of age of the holder thereof, as it did not mention the date of birth, and mentioned, instead, the age in years. This, in our view, is a distinction without a difference. After all, the determination of the date of birth is only for the sake of ascertaining the age of the person concerned. That apart, rule 7(3) of the JJ rules states that - the age determination inquiry shall be conducted by the Court or the Board or, as the case may be, the Committee by seeking evidence by obtaining one of the documents enlisted thereunder. As such, the document is only to be referred to, by way of evidence for ascertaining the age of the person concerned, and the Rule does not require, either expressly or by necessary implication, that the date of birth of the person should figure on the body of the said document. Indeed, when the document mentions the age itself, no better proof could be sought, for ascertaining the age of the person concerned. We, therefore, regretfully express our inability to subscribe to the view adopted by the High Court of Madras in Panneerselvam (supra).''

3. Yet distinguishing the decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in Panneerselvam v. Inspector of Police, MANU/TN/1054/2014, Division Bench of Delhi High Court has held that Aadhar card will be a superior document and is to be taken into consideration for determination of age.

4. Shri Kartik Jaggi fairly admits that the decision of the Supreme Court in Jarnail Singh Vs. State of Haryana, AIR 2013 SC 3467, is though discussed in para 36 of the judgment by the Division Bench of Delhi High Court but while arriving at its conclusion in para 37, it has not discussed that how the statutory rules can be superseded merely because a particular document is issued by the Government of India. In fact that document is not issued by the Government of India but an independent agency, namely, UIDAI.

5. In case of Jarnail Singh (supra), it is held that on the issue of determination of age of a minor, one only needs to make a reference to rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) rules, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as the ''Rules of 2007''). The aforestated Rules of 2007 have been framed under section 68(1) of the Juvenile J