ORDER
Mandhata Singh, J.
1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners, learned Counsel for opposite party No. 2 and the State.
2. This revision application has been filed against order dated 1-4-2008 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Nalanda at Biharsharif in S. Tr. No. 653 of 2001, arising out of Bihar (Sohsarai) P.S. Case No. 73/1999, by which the petition filed by the petitioners to declare them juvenile and send the case record to the Juvenile Justice Board has been rejected.
3. Gravity of the offence for which petitioners are alleged is not needed to be mentioned as age of the petitioners was only in question before the trial Court. It is pertinent to mention hero this much only that once the prayer was made to declare petitioners' juvenile was refused but from this Court an option was given to the petitioners to renew their player with fresh documents, if any, and in that context age is determined concluding the enquiry.
4. Incident is of 26-2-1999. At present the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act came into existence in the year 2000. Its amendment came into existence in the year 2006 certainly after the incident but Section 20 is there to make provision for applicability of the provisions of this Act in pending cases also. Thereafter, the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 also framed and came into existence making some guidelines and provisions for determination of age. Rule 12(3) provides some guidelines which runs as follows:
12(3) In every case concerning a child or juvenile in conflict with law, 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 -
(a) (i) the matriculation or equivalent certificates, if available; and in the absence whereof;
(ii) the date of birth certificate from the school (other than a play school) first attended; and in the absence whereof;
(iii) the birth certificate given by a corporation or a Municipal authority or a panchayat;
(b) and only in the absence of either (i), (ii) or (iii) of Clause (a) above, the medical opinion will be sought from a duly constituted Medical Board, which will declare the age of the juvenile or child. In case exact assessment of the age cannot be done, the Court or the Board or. as the case may be, the committee, for the reasons to be recorded by them. may, if considered necessary, give benefit to the child or juvenile by considering his/her age on lower side within the margin of one year, and. while passing order in such case shall after taking into consideration such evidence as may be available, or (he medical opinion, as the case may be, record a finding in respect of his age and either of the evidence specified in any of the clauses (a) (i), (ii), (iii) or in the absence whereof, Clause (b) shall be the conclusive proof of the age as regards such child or the juvenile in conflict with law.
5. There has been controversy since long about principles or documents or evidence to be accepted for determination of age that appears the reason for giving a definite guideline. So, it is for the Court or the Board to follow the same and as mentioned in Sub-rule (3) of Rule 12 matriculation or equivalent certificate if available is to be accepted and in absence of the same only rest of the evidence or document can be taken into consideration. Admittedly, if these documents (matriculation certificates) filed in the case are taken into consideration all the petitioners are juvenile finding below 18 years. It is admitted fact that in matriculation certificate of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Gupta alias Mantoo Kumar his date of birth is 15-4-1985, that of petitioner Manish Kumar is 5-2-1985, that of petitioner Sunil Kumar Verma alias Sunil Kumar is (sic) 10-1984, that of petitioner Anokha Kumar alias Rajiv Kumar Ranjan is 28-2-1986 and that of petitioner Sujeet Kumar alias Rakesh Raushan Priyadarshi is 25-12-1981.
6. Objection of opposite party No. 2 is in two folds - (i) that the juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 is not applicable in pending cases and (ii) all the petitioners appeared in matriculation examination only after the incident.
7. It is admitted by the parties that the case is at the stage of argument. Pendency of a case for argument is also pendency. Three of the petitioners namely Manish Kumar, Sunil Kumar Verma and Sujeet Kumar alias Rakesh Raushan Priyadarshi appeared in matriculation examination in the year 1999. Examination as admitted by the parties is conducted in the month of March but registration of examinees relates a year back. There is presumption of correctness of the official act also, if there was otherwise some thing is to be proved by the parties raising the same. So, observation of the Court that the documents have been brought after the occurrence is not sustainable after accepting matriculation certificates for assessment of the age on the relevant date that is on 26-2-1999 petitioner No. 1's (Sanjeet Kumar Gupta) age comes to about 15 years, petitioner No. 2 (Manish Kumar) about 14 years, petitioner No. 3 (Sunil Kumar Verma) about 15 years, petitioner No. 4 (Anokha Kumar alias Rajiv Kumar Ranjan) about 13 years and petitioner No. 5 (Sujeet Kumar alias Rakesh Raushan Priyadarshi) about 17 years. All below 18 years entitled for being declared as juvenile:
Accordingly, all the petitioners are declared juvenile.
8. In the result, this revision application is allowed, order dated 1-4-2008 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Nalanda at Biharsharif in S.T. No. 653 of 2001 is set aside.