# Bipin Bihari Chaurasiya Revisionist v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2024) 2 ILRA 1448
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-02-26
- **Case number:** Criminal Revision No. 192 of 2011
- **Bench:** Subhash Vidyarthi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/bipin-bihari-chaurasiya-revisionist-v-state-of-u-p-51273
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Sections 148, 302, 307, 504 & 506 - Arms
Act, 1959 - Section 25 - Explosives
Substance Act, 1908 - Section 4/5-
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of
Children) Act, 2000 - Section 7-A -
Juvenility - Plea of - In view of law laid
down in Paul George (infra), order dated
15.11.2022, passed in absence of counsel
and without reasons, being ex parte,
devoid of adjudication on merits, recall
application allowed - Revisionist claim
juvenility
on
basis
of
High
School
certificate issued in year 1997, which
records his date of birth as 09.07.1981 -
Under
Rule
12(3)(i),
date
of
birth
recorded in matriculation certificate to be
treated
conclusive
proof,
no
further
inquiry warranted - Trial court, while
examining
said
claim,
relied
upon
testimony of AW-1, who deposed that he
was aged about 73 years and that his
younger sister, i.e. mother of accused was
7-8 years junior to him, making her
present age about 65 years - Witness St.d
that his sister married at age of 16-17
years, delivered her first child in 1975 -
Trial court observed that if mother is
presently about 65 years of age and
married at 16-17 years (or at most 20
years), assertion of first child being born
in 1975 is not believable - Consequently,
held that revisionist not be treated as
below 18 years of age on date of incident -
Trial court's rejection of High School
certificate
not
permissible
in
law
-
Impugned order, set aside, trial court
directed to determine juvenility on basis
of date of birth recorded in High School
certificate. (Para 6, 14 to 16)

Revision allowed. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

1448 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
----------
(2024) 2 ILRA 1448
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 26.02.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

Criminal Revision No. 192 of 2011

Bipin Bihari Chaurasiya ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Rajesh Kumar Tiwari, Indrajeet Shukla, Manoj
Kumar Nishad, Skand Bajpai

Counsel for the Respondent:
Govt. Advocate

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Sections 148, 302, 307, 504 & 506 - Arms
Act, 1959 - Section 25 - Explosives
Substance Act, 1908 - Section 4/5-
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of
Children) Act, 2000 - Section 7-A -
Juvenility - Plea of - In view of law laid
down in Paul George (infra), order dated
15.11.2022, passed in absence of counsel
and without reasons, being ex parte,
devoid of adjudication on merits, recall
application allowed - Revisionist claim
juvenility
on
basis
of
High
School
certificate issued in year 1997, which
records his date of birth as 09.07.1981 -
Under
Rule
12(3)(i),
date
of
birth
recorded in matriculation certificate to be
treated
conclusive
proof,
no
further
inquiry warranted - Trial court, while
examining
said
claim,
relied
upon
testimony of AW-1, who deposed that he
was aged about 73 years and that his
younger sister, i.e. mother of accused was
7-8 years junior to him, making her
present age about 65 years - Witness St.d
that his sister married at age of 16-17
years, delivered her first child in 1975 -
Trial court observed that if mother is
presently about 65 years of age and
married at 16-17 years (or at most 20
years), assertion of first child being born
in 1975 is not believable - Consequently,
held that revisionist not be treated as
below 18 years of age on date of incident -
Trial court's rejection of High School
certificate
not
permissible
in
law
-
Impugned order, set aside, trial court
directed to determine juvenility on basis
of date of birth recorded in High School
certificate. (Para 6, 14 to 16)

Revision allowed. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:

1. Paul George Vs St.: (2002) 2 SCC 406, (Paras
6, 7)

2. Brij Mohan Singh Vs Priya Brat Narain Sinha &
ors.: AIR 1965 SC 282

3. Ashwani Kumar Saxena Vs St. of M.P., (2012)
9 SCC 750, (Paras 32, 33, 35)

4. Abuzar Hossain Vs St. of W.B., (2012) 10 SCC
489, (Paras 39.1 to 39.6)

5. Rishipal Singh Solanki Vs St. of U.P., (2022) 8
SCC 602, (Paras 33.1 to 33.11)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi
J.)

Order on Crl. Misc. Application
No.6 of 2023 & 7 of 2023:

1. Heard Sri Skand Bajpai, the learned
counsel for the revisionist, Smt. Parul Kant,
the learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of
the State and perused the records.

2. These are applications seeking
condonation of delay in filing application
for recall and the application for recall of
ex-parte order dated 15.11.2022, passed by
a coordinate Bench of this court on the
ground that the revisionist had engaged Sri
Indrajeet Shukla, Advocate as his counsel,
2 All. Bipin Bihari Chaurasiya Vs. State of U.P.
1449
who was subsequently appointed as an
Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the
State of U.P. and for this reason he could
not appear any further on behalf of the
revisionist. The revisionist did not have any
knowledge about his counsel having been
appointed as Additional Chief Standing
Counsel and therefore he did not engage
another counsel. In these circumstances the
revision was dismissed in absence of the
learned counsel for the revisionist on
15.11.2022.

3.
 Although,
the
order
dated
15.11.2022 has been passed in absence of
the revisionist or his learned counsel, it
records the submission of the learned State
Counsel that there is not illegality or
infirmity in the impugned order. The court
has recorded in the order dated 15.11.2022
as follows:

"The court below has given cogent,
convincing and satisfactory reasons while
passing the impugned order. Reasons
mentioned therein are good enough to
satisfy the passing of impugned order and
no fault could be found with the approach
adopted by the court below. Even otherwise
also, none has appeared on behalf of the
revisionists to press this revision though the
revision is pending since 2011.

In view of the above, I do not find any
illegality, infirmity or perversity in the
impugned order which may warrant any
interference.

The
revision
is,
accordingly,
dismissed."

4. Submission of the learned counsel
for the revisionist is that the aforesaid order
was passed in absence of the learned
counsel for the revisionist and therefore it
is an ex-parte order, which deserves to be
recalled. He has submitted that the
observations made regarding the revision
being merit have been made in a cursory
manner without adverting to the contents of
the order or the contentions raised in the
memo of revision.

5. In the case of Paul George Vs.
State: (2002) 2 SCC 406, the Delhi High
Court dismissed a Criminal Revision by the
following order: -

"I have heard the learned counsel for
the
petitioner.
I
find
no
illegality,
impropriety or jurisdictional error in the
judgment under challenge.

Dismissed."

The Hon'ble Supreme Court set aside
the aforesaid order after making the
following observations: -

"6. ...We feel that whatever be the
outcome of the pleas raised by the
appellant on merits, the order disposing of
the matter must indicate application of
mind to the case and some reasons be
assigned for negating or accepting such
pleas....

7....The order impugned however does
not indicate any trace of application of
mind on the facts or the pleas raised before
the Court. We would like to point out that
we come across with such orders quite
frequently as of now. There is no need to
emphasize that the reasons, howsoever
brief they may be, are to be indicated in an
order disposing of any matter, more so
when such orders are subject to appeal or
review before the higher forum."

6. In view of the aforesaid law laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Paul George (supra), it is clear that
the order dated 15.11.2022 passed in the
absence of learned counsel for the
revisionist without recording any reasons
engaging adjudication of the revision by
1450 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
this court is an ex-parte order, which does
not discuss the merits of the case and it
deserves to be recalled.

7. Accordingly, the applications are
allowed. The
delay
in
filing
recall
application is hereby condoned. The order
dated 15.11.2022 is hereby recalled and the
revision stands restored to its original
number.

Order on memo of revision:

8. The instant revision has been filed
challenging the validity of the impugned
order dated 27.04.2011 passed by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court
No.11, Pratapgarh, in Sessions Trial No.
369 of 1998, under Sections 148, 302, 307,
504, 506 I.P.C., Sessions Trial No.372 of
1998, under Section 25 of Arms Act and
Sessions Trial No.373 of 1998, under
Section 4/5 Explosives Substance Act,
Police Station Kandhai, District Pratapgarh,
whereby three different applications filed in
the aforesaid three cases for declaring the
revisionist to be a juvenile-delinquent on
the ground that the high school certificate
in the year 1997 mentions his date of birth
as 09.07.1981 was recorded. The learned
trial court has disbelieved the date of birth
of the revisionist mentioned in the high
school certificate on the ground that from
the statement of PW-1 recorded by the
learned trial court, the date of birth of the
revisionist mentioned in the high school
certificate appears to be incorrect. The
learned trial court has relied upon the
judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Brij Mohan Singh Vs. Priya Brat
Narain Sinha and others: AIR 1965 SC
282, which was a case arising out
Representation of People Act, 1951,
wherein the court disbelieved the age of a
person mention in the high school record,
keeping in view the peculiar facts and
circumstances of the case.

9. Section 7-A of the Juvenile Justice
(Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000
provides that: -

"7-A. Procedure to be followed when
claim of juvenility is raised before any
court.-(1) Whenever a claim of juvenility
is raised before any court or a court is of
the opinion that an accused person was a
juvenile on the date of commission of the
offence, the court shall make an enquiry,
take such evidence as may be necessary
(but not an affidavit) so as to determine the
age of such person, and shall record a
finding whether the person is a juvenile or
a child or not, stating his age as nearly as
may be:

Provided that a claim of juvenility may
be raised before any court and it shall be
recognised at any stage, even after final
disposal of the case, and such claim shall
be determined in terms of the provisions
contained in this Act and the Rules made
thereunder, even if the juvenile has ceased
to be so on or before the date of
commencement of this Act.

(2) If the court finds a person to be a
juvenile on the date of commission of the
offence under sub-section (1), it shall
forward the juvenile to the Board for
passing
appropriate
orders,
and
the
sentence if any, passed by a court shall be
deemed to have no effect."

10. Rule 12 of Juvenile Justice (Care
and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007
provides as follows: -

"12. Procedure to be followed in
determination of age.

(1)In every case concerning a child or
a juvenile in conflict with law, the Court or
2 All. Bipin Bihari Chaurasiya Vs. State of U.P.
1451
the Board, as the case may be, the
Committee referred to in rule 19 of these
rules shall determine the age of such
juvenile or child or a juvenile in conflict
with law within a period of thirty days from
the date of making of the application for
that purpose.

(2)The Court or the Board or, as the
case may be, the Committee shall decide
the juvenility or otherwise of the juvenile or
the child or, as the case may be, the
juvenile in conflict with law, prima facie on
the basis of physical appearances or
documents, if available, and send him to
the observation home or in jail.

(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-

(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 orders in such case
shall, after taking into consideration such
evidence as may be available, or the
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.

(4)If the age of a juvenile or child or
the juvenile in conflict with law is found to
be below 18 years on the date of offence,
on the basis of any of the conclusive proof
specified in sub-rule (3), the Court or the
Board or, as the case may be, the
Committee shall in writing pass an order
stating the age and declaring the status of
juvenility or otherwise, for the purpose of
the Act and these rules and a copy of the
order shall be given to such juvenile or the
person concerned.

(5)Save and except where, further
inquiry or otherwise is required, inter alia,
in terms of section 7-A, section 64 of the
Act and these rules, no further inquiry shall
be conducted by the Court or the Board
after
examining
and
obtaining
the
certificate or any other documentary proof
referred to in sub-rule (3) of this rule.

(6)The provisions contained in this
rule shall also apply to those disposed off
cases, where the status of juvenility has not
been determined in accordance with the
provisions contained in sub-rule (3) and the
Act, requiring dispensation of the sentence
under the Act for passing appropriate order
in the interest of the juvenile in conflict
with law."

11. In Ashwani Kumar Saxena v.
State of M.P., (2012) 9 SCC 750, it was
held that: -

32.
"Age
determination
inquiry"
contemplated under Section 7-A of the Act
read with Rule 12 of the 2007 Rules
enables the court to seek evidence and in
1452 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
that process, the court can obtain the
matriculation or equivalent certificates, if
available. Only in the absence of any
matriculation or equivalent certificates, the
court needs to obtain the date of birth
certificate from the school first attended
other than a play school. Only in the
absence of matriculation or equivalent
certificate or the date of birth certificate
from the school first attended, the court
needs to obtain the birth certificate given
by a corporation or a municipal authority
or a panchayat (not an affidavit but
certificates or documents). The question of
obtaining medical opinion from a duly
constituted Medical Board arises only if the
abovementioned
documents
are
unavailable. In case exact assessment of
the age cannot be done, then the court, for
reasons to be recorded, may, if considered
necessary, give the benefit to the child or
juvenile by considering his or her age on
lower side within the margin of one year.

33. Once the court, following the
abovementioned procedures, passes an
order, that order shall be the conclusive
proof of the age as regards such child or
juvenile in conflict with law. It has been
made clear in sub-rule (5) of Rule 12 that
no further inquiry shall be conducted by the
court or the Board after examining and
obtaining the certificate or any other
documentary proof after referring to subrule (3) of Rule 12. Further, Section 49 of
the JJ Act also draws a presumption of the
age of the juvenility on its determination.

* * *

35. We have come across several cases in
which the trial courts have examined a
large number of witnesses on either side
including the conduct of ossification test
and calling for odontology report, even in
cases, where matriculation or equivalent
certificate, the date of birth certificate from
the school last or first attended, the birth
certificate given by a corporation or a
municipal authority or a panchayat are
made available. We have also come across
cases where even the courts in the large
number of cases express doubts over
certificates produced and carry on detailed
probe which is totally unwarranted."

12. In Abuzar Hossain v. State of
W.B., (2012) 10 SCC 489, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court summarized the legal
principles in this regard as follows: -

"39.1. A claim of juvenility may be
raised at any stage even after the final
disposal of the case. It may be raised for
the first time before this Court as well after
the final disposal of the case. The delay in
raising the claim of juvenility cannot be a
ground for rejection of such claim. The
claim of juvenility can be raised in appeal
even if not pressed before the trial court
and can be raised for the first time before
this Court though not pressed before the
trial court and in the appeal court.

39.2. For making a claim with regard
to juvenility after conviction, the claimant
must produce some material which may
prima facie satisfy the court that an inquiry
into the claim of juvenility is necessary.
Initial burden has to be discharged by the
person who claims juvenility.

39.3. As to what materials would
prima facie satisfy the court and/or are
sufficient for discharging the initial burden
cannot be catalogued nor can it be laid
down as to what weight should be given to
a specific piece of evidence which may be
sufficient to raise presumption of juvenility
but the documents referred to in Rules
12(3)(a)(i) to (iii) shall definitely be
sufficient for prima facie satisfaction of the
court about the age of the delinquent
necessitating further enquiry under Rule
2 All. Bipin Bihari Chaurasiya Vs. State of U.P.
1453
12. The statement recorded under Section
313 of the Code is too tentative and may
not by itself be sufficient ordinarily to
justify or reject the claim of juvenility. The
credibility and/or acceptability of the
documents
like
the
school
leaving
certificate or the voters' list, etc. obtained
after conviction would depend on the facts
and circumstances of each case and no
hard-and-fast rule can be prescribed that
they must be prima facie accepted or
rejected. In Akbar Sheikh (2009) 7 SCC
415 and Pawan (2009) 15 SCC 259 these
documents were not found prima facie
credible while in Jitendra Singh (2010) 13
SCC 523 the documents viz. school leaving
certificate, marksheet and the medical
report were treated sufficient for directing
an
inquiry
and
verification
of
the
appellant's age. If such documents prima
facie inspire confidence of the court, the
court may act upon such documents for the
purposes of Section 7-A and order an
enquiry for determination of the age of the
delinquent.

39.4. An affidavit of the claimant or
any of the parents or a sibling or a relative
in support of the claim of juvenility raised
for the first time in appeal or revision or
before this Court during the pendency of
the matter or after disposal of the case
shall not be sufficient justifying an enquiry
to determine the age of such person unless
the circumstances of the case are so glaring
that satisfy the judicial conscience of the
court
to
order
an
enquiry
into
determination of the age of the delinquent.

39.5. The court where the plea of
juvenility is raised for the first time should
always be guided by the objectives of the
2000 Act and be alive to the position that
the beneficent and salutary provisions
contained in the 2000 Act are not defeated
by the hypertechnical approach and the
persons who are entitled to get benefits of
the 2000 Act get such benefits. The courts
should not be unnecessarily influenced by
any general impression that in schools the
parents/guardians understate the age of
their wards by one or two years for future
benefits or that age determination by
medical examination is not very precise.
The matter should be considered prima
facie on the touchstone of preponderance
of probability.

39.6. Claim of juvenility lacking in
credibility or frivolous claim of juvenility
or patently absurd or inherently improbable
claim of juvenility must be rejected by the
court at the threshold whenever raised."

(Emphasis supplied)

13. In Rishipal Singh Solanki v.
State of U.P., (2022) 8 SCC 602, the
Hon'ble
Supreme
Court
referred
to
numerous precedents on the point and
summarized the principles of law as
follows: -

"33.1.A claim of juvenility may be
raised at any stage of a criminal
proceeding, even after a final disposal of
the case. A delay in raising the claim of
juvenility cannot be a ground for rejection
of such claim. It can also be raised for the
first time before this Court.

33.2.An application claiming juvenility
could be made either before the court or
the JJ Board.

33.2.1.When the issue of juvenility
arises before a court, it would be under
sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 9 of the
JJ Act, 2015 but when a person is brought
before a committee or JJ Board, Section 94
of the JJ Act, 2015 applies.

33.2.2.If an application is filed before
the court claiming juvenility, the provision
of sub-section (2) of Section 94 of the JJ
Act, 2015 would have to be applied or read
along with sub-section (2) of Section 9 so
1454 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
as to seek evidence for the purpose of
recording a finding stating the age of the
person as nearly as may be.

33.2.3.When an application claiming
juvenility is made under Section 94 of the
JJ Act, 2015 before the JJ Board when the
matter regarding the alleged commission of
offence is pending before a court, then the
procedure contemplated under Section 94
of the JJ Act, 2015 would apply. Under the
said provision if the JJ Board has
reasonable grounds for doubt regarding
whether the person brought before it is a
child or not, the Board shall undertake the
process of age determination by seeking
evidence and the age recorded by the JJ
Board to be the age of the person so
brought before it shall, for the purpose of
the JJ Act, 2015, be deemed to be true age
of that person. Hence the degree of proof
required in such a proceeding before the JJ
Board, when an application is filed seeking
a claim of juvenility when the trial is before
the criminal court concerned, is higher
than when an inquiry is made by a court
before which the case regarding the
commission of the offence is pending (vide
Section 9 of the JJ Act, 2015).

33.3.That when a claim for juvenility
is raised, the burden is on the person raising
the claim to satisfy the court to discharge the
initial burden. However, the documents
mentioned in Rules 12(3)(a)(i), (ii) and (iii) of
the JJ Rules, 2007 made under the JJ Act,
2000 or sub-section (2) of Section 94 of the JJ
Act, 2015, shall be sufficient for prima facie
satisfaction of the court. On the basis of the
aforesaid documents a presumption of
juvenility may be raised.

33.4.The said presumption is however not
conclusive proof of the age of juvenility and the
same may be rebutted by contra evidence let in
by the opposite side.

33.5.That the procedure of an inquiry by a
court is not the same thing as declaring the age
of the person as a juvenile sought before the JJ
Board when the case is pending for trial before
the criminal court concerned. In case of an
inquiry, the court records a prima facie
conclusion but when there is a determination of
age as per sub-section (2) of Section 94 of the
2015 Act, a declaration is made on the basis of
evidence. Also the age recorded by the JJ Board
shall be deemed to be the true age of the person
brought before it. Thus, the standard of proof in
an inquiry is different from that required in a
proceeding where the determination and
declaration of the age of a person has to be
made on the basis of evidence scrutinised and
accepted only if worthy of such acceptance.

33.6.That it is neither feasible nor
desirable to lay down an abstract formula to
determine the age of a person. It has to be on
the basis of the material on record and on
appreciation of evidence adduced by the parties
in each case.

33.7.This Court has observed that a
hypertechnical approach should not be adopted
when evidence is adduced on behalf of the
accused in support of the plea that he was a
juvenile.

33.8.If two views are possible on the same
evidence, the court should lean in favour of
holding the accused to be a juvenile in
borderline cases. This is in order to ensure
that the benefit of the JJ Act, 2015 is made
applicable to the juvenile in conflict with
law. At the same time, the court should
ensure that the JJ Act, 2015 is not misused
by persons to escape punishment after
having committed serious offences.

33.9.That when the determination of
age is on the basis of evidence such as
school records, it is necessary that the
same would have to be considered as per
Section 35 of the Evidence Act, inasmuch
as any public or official document
maintained in the discharge of official
duty would have greater credibility than
private
documents.
2 All. Bhagwan Laxmi Narain Mandir Trust Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1455

33.10.Any document which is in
consonance with public documents, such
as matriculation certificate, could be
accepted by the court or the JJ Board
provided such public document is credible
and authentic as per the provisions of the
Evidence Act viz. Section 35 and other
provisions.

33.11.Ossification test cannot be the
sole criterion for age determination and a
mechanical view regarding the age of a
person cannot be adopted solely on the
basis of medical opinion by radiological
examination.
Such
evidence
is
not
conclusive evidence but only a very useful
guiding factor to be considered in the
absence of documents mentioned in Section
94(2) of the JJ Act, 2015.

14. When this court examines the
facts of the present case in the light of the
law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the aforesaid case, it appears that
the revisionist claims himself to be a
juvenile on the ground that the high school
certificate issued in the year 1997 mentions
his date of birth to be 09.07.1981. When
the high school certificate was available, as
per the provisions contained in Rule 12 (3)
(i), no further enquiry is permissible to
ascertain the date of birth of the juvenile.
The learned trial court has stated that as per
the statement of AW1 Ram Pal Chaurasiya,
witness is aged about 73 years, his younger
sister i.e. mother of the accused is about 78 years younger to him, from which it can
be assumed that presently the mother of the
accused would be aged about 65 years; the
witness has stated that his sister got married
when she was aged about 16-17 years and
her first daughter was born two years after
her marriage, in the year 1975. In case his
sister is presently aged about 65 years and
she got married in the age of 16-17 years or
at the most 20 years, the contention of the
birth of the daughter in the year 1975 is not
believable. In case the mother of the
accused got married in the year 16-17
years, it cannot be believed that she
delivered her first child in the year 1975
and from the aforesaid facts the age of the
revisionist cannot be below 18 years on the
date of the incident i.e. 11.04.1998.

15. This assessment made by learned
trial court for disbelieving the high school
certificate is not permissible in law.

16. Accordingly, the order dated
27.04.2011
passed
by
the
learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.11,
Pratapgarh is not sustainable. The revision
is allowed. The learned trial court is
directed to decide the issue of juvenility of
the revisionist by treating his date of birth
mentioned in the high school certificate to
be correct and to proceed with the trial
accordingly.
----------
(2024) 2 ILRA 1455
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 20.02.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

Criminal Revision No. 347 of 2001

Bhagwan Laxmi Narain Mandir Trust
 ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Revisionist:
R.C. Mishra, Awadhesh Kumar

Counsel for the Respondent:
Govt. Advocate, S.K. Rastogi

Criminal
Law
-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure,
1973
-
Section
133
-