# Kalim Revisionist v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2022) 10 ILRA 688
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-09-22
- **Case number:** Criminal Revision No. 568 of 2022
- **Bench:** Mrs. Jyotsna Sharma
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/kalim-revisionist-v-state-of-u-p-anr-47776
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Civil Law - Juvenile Justice Act,2015-
Section 102-impugned order determined the
age by report of Medical Board and not by
school certificates-school certificate records the
age as 14 years and 12 days on the date of
occurrence-informant rebutted the date of birth
and produced copy of pariwar register and
driving license- school leaving certificate quite
doubtful-no underlying document to record his
age at the time of admission-Court below rightly
embarked on an inquiry and radiological age
was ordered.

Revision dismissed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

688 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
conclude the same at the earliest without
getting
influenced
by
any
of
the
observations made in this order.

18. Copy of the order be certified to
the Court concerned

Note- Copy of the order be sent to
concerned Section of the Registry for
immediate compliance of direction given
in Para-1 of the order.
----------
(2022) 10 ILRA 688
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 22.09.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. JYOTSNA SHARMA, J.

Criminal Revision No. 568 of 2022

Kalim ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sri Santosh Kumar Chaubey

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A., Sri J.B. Singh

Civil Law - Juvenile Justice Act,2015-
Section 102-impugned order determined the
age by report of Medical Board and not by
school certificates-school certificate records the
age as 14 years and 12 days on the date of
occurrence-informant rebutted the date of birth
and produced copy of pariwar register and
driving license- school leaving certificate quite
doubtful-no underlying document to record his
age at the time of admission-Court below rightly
embarked on an inquiry and radiological age
was ordered.

Revision dismissed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:
1. Ajay Kumar Singh @ Babloo Singh Vs St. of
U.P. & Uday Pratap Singh; 2022 (6) ADJ 85 (LB)

2. Buddhu Vs St. of U.P.; (2021) 12 ILR A144

3. Ashwani Kumar Saxena Vs St. of M. P.;
(2012) 9 SCC 750

4. Rashipal Singh Solanki Vs St. of U.P. & ors.;
2021 (11) ADJ 489

5. Parag Bhati Vs St. of U.P.; (2016) 12 SCC 744

6. Sanjeev Kumar Gupta Vs St. of U.P. & anr.;
(2019) 12 SCC 370

7. Abuzar Hossain Vs St. of W. B.l; (2012) 10
SCC 489

8. Ashwani Kumar Saxena Vs St. of M.P.; (2012)
9 SCC 750

9. Babloo Pasi Vs St. of Jharkhand; (2008) 13
SCC 133

10. Arnit Das Vs St. of Bihar; (2000) 5 SCC 488

11. Jitendra Ram Vs St. of Jharkhand; (2006) 9
SCC 428
(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Jyotsna
Sharma, J.)

1. Heard Sri Santosh Kumar Chaubey,
learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri J.B.
Singh, learned counsel for the respondent
no. 2 and learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. This criminal revision has been
filed under Section 102 of the Juvenile
Justice Act, 2015 with a prayer to set aside
the order of the Juvenile Justice Board
dated
26.03.2021
passed
in
age
determination inquiry in Misc. Application
No. 43 of 2020 arising out of Crime No.
439 of 2020 under Sections 302, 120-B
IPC, Police Station Hasanpur, DistrictAmroha (J.P. Nagar) with a further prayer
to set aside the order passed in criminal
10 All. Kalim Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
689
appeal affirming the order of the Juvenile
Justice Board and to declare the revisionist
a juvenile under the Juvenile Justice Act,
2015.

3. The submission of the revisionist
are that the learned courts below have
committed a manifest error of law in
passing the impugned orders; in the school
certificate the date of birth was shown as
10.08.2006, which clearly established the
age of the revisionist as 14 years and 12
days on the date of the occurrence; the
courts below ignored the school certificate
thereby flouting the provisions of law; the
school certificate was proved by the
evidence of the teacher of the concerned
primary school and by the Ex-Principal of
the same institution examined as CW2 and
CW3; the learned courts below instead of
relying
upon
the
original
and
the
documentary
evidence
took
into
consideration the report of the Medical
Board and disbelieved the date of birth, as
shown in the certificate; the impugned
order is illegal because it is founded on the
fact that the copy of the pariwar register
was not produced by the revisionist at the
right time; at the same time, the age of the
juvenile, as shown in the driving licence
was accepted against the provisions of law,
hence, the impugned orders are liable to be
set aside and the revisionist deserves to be
declared a juvenile.

4. The revisionist has relied on Ajay
Kumar Singh @ Babloo Singh vs. State of
U.P. and Uday Pratap Singh; 2022 (6)
ADJ 85 (LB), wherein the Court observed
that the matriculation certificate was
available, therefore, there was no occasion
to have gone for other documents, such as
birth certificate issued by the local bodies.
In the above case before the court the
arguments of the revisionist that the
Juvenile Justice Board should have gone
for ossification test, was discarded as
misconceived in the light of specific
provisions given in clause (iii) of Section
94 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 which
said that only in the absence of document
mentioned in clause (i) and (ii), age shall be
determined by an ossification test. The
Court discarded the plea that the original
document of the school first attended
should have been summoned and held that
the court below rightly determined the age
of the juvenile on the basis of the
matriculation certificate and it was opined
that unless some documentary proof or
evidence is produced before the Board or
the lower appellate court, which may
negate the correctness of the high school
certificate, the order cannot be faulted.

5. The revisionist also relied upon the
judgment of this Court in Buddhu vs. State
of U.P.; (2021) 12 ILR A144, to stress the
point that the educational certificate is to be
preferred over any other evidence and the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India in Ashwani Kumar Saxena vs. State
of Madhya Pradesh; (2012) 9 SCC 750,
wherein the Court stated its opinion in the
following words:

"34........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,
Juvenile Justice 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
690 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
fabricated or manipulated, the court, the
Juvenile Justice Board or the committee
need to go for medical report for age
determination."

6. The Hon'ble Court in Ashwani
Kumar Saxena (supra), then proceeded to
examine the essential difference between
the words 'inquiry, investigation and trial'
as we find in the Cr.P.C. Thereafter held
that the procedure to be followed under the
Juvenile Justice Act in conducting the
inquiry is the procedure as laid down in
that statute itself i.e., Rule 12 of 2007 Rules
and held that the age determination inquiry
contemplated under the Juvenile Justice
Act and Rules had nothing to do with the
inquiry under other legislations like entry
in service, retirement and promotion. The
Court observed that where the entry made
in the school certificates is available, the
Court or the Juvenile Justice Board is not
expected to conduct a roving inquiry and
go beyond those certificates to examine
their correctness when those documents
have been kept during the normal course of
business. The Hon'ble Court held that the
credibility
and
acceptability
of
the
documents, including the school leaving
certificate, would depend on the facts and
circumstances of each case and no hard and
fast rule as such could be laid down in that
regard. The Hon'ble Court also held that the
certificates shall not be viewed as doubtful
on a notion that the parents usually get
entered a wrong date of birth in the
admission registers.

7. On the other hand, the dictum of
Hon'ble Apex Court in Rashipal Singh
Solanki vs. State of U.P. and Others;
2021 (11) ADJ 489 decided on 18.11.2021
has been presented before me wherein the
Hon'ble Apex Court had considered the
judgments given in Parag Bhati vs. State
of U.P.; (2016) 12 SCC 744, Sanjeev
Kumar Gupta vs. State of U.P. and
Another; (2019) 12 SCC 370 and Abuzar
Hossain vs. State of West Bengal; (2012)
10 SCC 489, Ashwani Kumar Saxena vs.
State of M.P.; (2012) 9 SCC 750, Babloo
Pasi vs. State of Jharkhand; (2008) 13
SCC 133, Arnit Das vs. State of Bihar;
(2000) 5 SCC 488, Jitendra Ram vs. State
of Jharkhand; (2006) 9 SCC 428 and
several others.

8. In Para-25 of the above judgment
(Rashipal Singh Solanki), the Hon'ble
Apex Court has pointed out the difference
in the procedure under the two enactments
i.e., the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000 and the
Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, as to inquiry
into determination of age of the juvenile
and also the power to seek evidence, how
and when to exercise that power and when
to go for ossification test. The Hon'ble
Court, in nutshell, held that each case may
be dealt with in the light of its own peculiar
facts and circumstances while keeping
certain principles as guiding factor in mind
as described in concluding para of the
judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court. The
concluding para shall be reproduced
verbatim in para 13 of present judgment.

9. At the same time, the Hon'ble Apex
Court in Rashipal Singh Solanki (supra),
in the same para pointed out the similarity
between the Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice
Rules, 2007 and sub-section (2) of Section
94 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, as a
substantive provisions. The Hon'ble Apex
Court referred to a judgment in Ashwani
Kumar Saxena (supra) and also Abuzar
Hossain (supra) highlighting the fact that
only in cases where certificates are found to
be fabricated and manipulated, the Juvenile
Justice Board need to go for medical report
and also highlighted the fact that the
10 All. Kalim Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
691
yardstick for depending on the school
certificates may be a bit different where the
school leaving certificate or voter list etc.,
is obtained after conviction.

10. In may view, the Hon'ble Court
kept in mind the facts and circumstances
attached
to
production
of
documents/certificates, as required by the
provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act
before those documents could be relied
upon. In another words, it appears that the
opinion largely is that even if the
documents are found to be prima facie
correct,
there
may
be
facts
and
circumstances to alert the Court to go into
the
inquiry
to
satisfy
itself
as
to
correctness of the claim. In the same
breath, the Court referred to an opinion
given in the judgment of Abuzar Hossain
(supra) that when any claimant or any of
the parents or a siblings in support of the
claim of the juvenility raised for the first
time in appeal or revision depends on mere
affidavits, it shall not be sufficient to justify
the inquiry for determination of age unless
there exist circumstances which cannot be
ignored.

11. In Sanjeev Kumar Gupta (supra),
the credibility and authenticity of the
matriculation certificate for the purpose of
determination of age under Section 7(A) of
the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000 came up for
consideration. In the said case, the Juvenile
Justice Board had rejected the claim of the
juvenility and that decision of the Juvenile
Justice Board was restored by the Hon'ble
Apex Court by rejecting the order of the
Hon'ble High Court. It was observed
therein that the records maintained by the
C.B.S.C. were purely on the basis of final
list of the students forwarded by the Senior
Secondary School where the juvenile had
studied from Class 5 to 10 and not on the
basis of any other underlying documents.
On the other hand, there was clear and
unimpeachable evidence of date of birth
which had been recorded in the records of
another
school,
which
the
second
respondent therein had attended till class 4
and which was supported by voluntary
disclosure made by the accused while
obtaining both, Aadhaar Card and driving
license. It was observed that the date of
birth
reflected
in
the
matriculation
certificate could not be accepted as
authentic or credible. In the said case, it
was held that the date of birth of the second
respondent therein was 17.12.1995 and that
he was not entitled to claim juvenility as
the date of the alleged incident was
18.08.2015.

12. The Hon'ble Apex Court in
Sanjeev Kumar Gupta (supra) considered
the judgment in Ashwani Kumar Saxena
(supra) and also judgment in Abuzar
Hossain @ Gulam Hossain (supra), and
observed
that
the
credibility
and
acceptability of the documents including
the school leaving certificate would depend
on the facts and circumstances of each case
and no hard and fast rule as such could be
laid down in that regard. The Hon'ble Apex
Court reproduced the observation of itself
in Abuzar Hossain @ Gulam Hossain
(supra) which is below:

".......directing an inquiry is not
the same thing as declaring the accused to
be a juvenile. In the former, the Court
simply records a prima facie conclusion,
while a declaration is made on the basis of
evidence. Hence, the approach at the stage
of directing an inquiry has to be more
liberal lest, there is miscarriage of justice.
The standard of proof required is different
for both. In the former, the Court simply
records the prima facie conclusion. It
692 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
would eventually depend on how the
Court evaluates such material for a prima
facie conclusion and the Court may or
may not direct an inquiry. In the latter,
the Court makes a declaration on evidence
that it scrutinises and accepts such
evidence
only
if
it
is
worthy
of
acceptance."

13 . The Hon'ble Apex Court in
Rashipal Singh Solanki (supra), after
considering all the judgments held as
below:

"29.
What
emerges
on
a
cumulative consideration of the aforesaid
catena of judgments is as follows:

(i) 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.

(ii) An application claiming
juvenility could be made either before the
Court or the JJ Board.

(ii-a)
When
the
issue
of
juvenility arises before a Court, it would
be under sub-section (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.

(ii-b) 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 as to seek evidence for the purpose of
recording a finding stating the age of the
person as nearly as may be.

(ii-c)
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 concerned criminal court, 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).

(iii) 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 Rule 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 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.

(iv) 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.
10 All. Kalim Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
693

(v) 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
concerned criminal court. 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 94of 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.

(vi) 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.

(vii) This Court has observed
that a hyper-

technical approach should not
be adopted when evidence is adduced on
behalf of the accused in support of the
plea that he was a juvenile.

(viii) 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.

(ix) 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 Indian Evidence Act,
inasmuch as any public or official
document maintained in the discharge of
official duty would have greater credibility
than private documents.

(x) 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
Indian Evidence Act viz., section 35 and
other provisions.

(xi) 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. The Hon'ble Court, referring to
the fact that there was no other document
contradicting the date of birth as shown in
the matriculation certificate, held that the
medical evidence is not required and
upheld the order of the Hon'ble High Court
which sustained the judgment of the
Sessions Court as well as the Juvenile
Justice Board.

15. Coming to the facts of this matter
admittedly, the school leaving certificate,
694 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
wherein the date of birth was shown as
10.08.2006, issued on 25.11.2020 by the
Primary School, Bawan Kheri, ThanaHasanpur, Amroha was produced, however,
the authenticity and the acceptability of that
certificate
was
challenged
by
the
respondent-informant by producing a copy
of pariwar register showing date of birth of
juvenile as of the year 1999 as well as a
driving licence showing the same year of
birth. Thereafter, in rebuttal another copy
of pariwar register was produced on behalf
of the juvenile showing his date of birth as
10.08.2006.

16. In the above circumstances, an
inquiry into the age determination was
directed
and
several
witnesses
were
examined. CW1-father of juvenile admitted
that he knows about the date of birth of his
son only on the basis of entry in the school
leaving certificate and that he does not
remember his exact date of birth. CW2Mariyam, Principal of the school, though,
verified the fact that the transfer certificate
was issued by the school and also produced
the S.R. register, the attendance register
etc., however, she stated that she was
unaware of the basis of entry of date of
birth as 10.08.2006 and the reasons for
juvenile's admission in that institutions in
Class-IInd. CW3-the Ex-principal of that
school stated that at the time of his
admission, he recorded the age of the
juvenile and the date of birth as 10.08.2006
as told by his elder brother, the only person
who accompanied the juvenile at the time
of his admission. Admittedly, admission
register was never produced. The medical
examination and the X-ray of the juvenile
indicated that his radiological age was
about 19 years. The radiologist namely, Dr.
Kuldeep Singh found that the bones of
wrist, elbow, knees and clavicle were all
fused.

17. From the perusal of the impugned
order, it appears that finding the school
leaving certificate quite doubtful and
finding that there was no underlying
document to record his age at the time of
admission in the concerned institution
coupled with the facts that other documents
like copy of pariwar register and driving
licence showed different age of the
juvenile, in my view, the Juvenile Justice
Board and the learned Appellate Court
below rightly embarked on an inquiry and
radiological age was ordered to be
conducted. The courts below cannot be
faulted
for
depending
upon
the
medical/radiological age of the juvenile and
declaring him as an adult on the basis of the
evidence available in the facts and
circumstance of the case. Before this Court,
copy of bail order passed in Bail
Application No. 70/2022 dated 15.01.2022
passed by the Incharge, Sessions Judge,
Amroha and copy of the order passed by
this Court on 24.05.2022 in Criminal Misc.
Bail Application No. 7301 of 2022 moved
on behalf of the present revisionist, who
claim himself to be a juvenile, has been
brought on record. In the bail application
moved before the Sessions Judge, the
applicant-revisionist has shown his age as
19 years, which goes against his own claim.

18. In my view, there were enough of
reasons to discard the documented age of
the juvenile and to call for ossification test,
the Board was perfectly justified in seeking
evidence for determination of age and
drawing its own conclusion based on the
evidence available including evidence of
radiological test. The Board as well as
appellate
court
both
have
given
a
concurrent finding which is not liable to be
disturbed by this Court while exercising
revisional powers under Section 102 of the
Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, therefore, I do
10 All. Deepak @ Bhoora Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
695
not find any illegality or impropriety in the
impugned order.

19. The revision is, accordingly,
dismissed.
----------
(2022) 10 ILRA 695
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 23.09.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE GAJENDRA KUMAR, J.

Criminal Revision No.858 of 2022

Deepak @ Bhoora ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sri Subash Chandra Yadav, Sri Vimlesh Kuar

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

Criminal Law - Juvenile Justice (Care
and Protection of Child) Act, 2015 -
Sections 12, 12(1) & 102 - Protection of
Children From Sexual Offences Act,
2012- Section - 4 - Criminal Procedure
Code, 1973 - Section - 161, - Indian
Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 306, 354,
376(d), 452 & 506- Criminal Revision -
against rejection of Bail Application & appeal
against rejection - FIR - offence of teasing,
molest, gang rape, threat as well as pouring
kerosene on victim and set fire with intention
to kill the victim - end of justice cannot be
stand in vacuum - the nature and manner of
commission of the crime cannot be ignored
while striking a balance between demands of
justice of either of the sides - facts cannot
go in oblivion that victim was admitted in
hospital with suicidal thermal burns by
kerosene, she was pregnant due to gangraped - she was faced MTP and ultimately
during treatment of burring she was died
due to septic shock - release on bail would
adversely impact the law and order and
equilibrium of an ordered society - the act of
revisionist has put the society and its
surroundings on alarm that no child of
tender years and more than that the parents
or the guardians of a young child would feel
safe during their daily routine - thus, release
of accused in conflict with law would lead to
ends of justice being defeated - accordingly
revision is dismissed. (Para - 14, 18, 19)

Criminal Revision Dismissed. (E-11)

List of Cases cited:

1. Shiv Kumar Vs St. of U.P., Criminal Revision
No. 379 of 2009, decided on 22.12.2009

2. Dharmendra Vs St. of U.P., Criminal Revision
No. 4141 of 2017, decided on 13.04.2018

3. Juvenile X Vs St. of U.P., Criminal Revision
No.1693 of 2021, decided on 22.02.2022

4. X. Vs St. of U.P., Criminal Revision No.860 of
2022, decided on 21.03.2022

5. Amit Vs St. of U.P., Criminal Revision No.
1852 of 2015, decided on 16.03.2016

6. Vijendra Kumar Mali Vs St. of U.P., 2003 (1)
JIC 103

7. Om Prakash Vs St. of Raj. & anr., (2012) 5
SCC 201

8. Mangesh Rajbhar Vs St. of U.P. & anr., 2018
(2) ACR 1941.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Gajendra Kumar, J.)

1. It appears that name of the
revisionist-juvenile has been disclosed in
the memo of revision. This fault from the
side of revisionist escaped detection by the
Registry. The concerned Officer of the
Registry is directed to delete the name of
the revisionist-minor from the title of the
revision as fed and shown in the data on
website and represent him as "Minor 'X'