# Shakeel Revisionist v. State Of U.P. & Anr - **Citation:** (2016) 8 ILRA 829 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2016-08-09 - **Bench:** Prabhat Chandra Tripathi - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/shakeel-revisionist-v-state-of-u-p-anr-44275 - **Pages:** 4 ## Text 8 All. Shakeel Vs State Of U.P. & Anr. 829 (2016) 8 ILRA 829 REVISIONAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 09.08.2016 BEFORE THE HON'BLE PRABHAT CHANDRA TRIPATHI, J. Criminal Revision No.- 2506 Of 2013 Shakeel ...Revisionist Versus State Of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties Counsel for Revisionist: Zafar Abbas, Jameel Ahmad Azmi, R.A. Khan, R.K. Mishra, Ravindra Sharma Counsel for Opposite Parties: Govt. Advocate, Raghvendra Prakash Juvenile Justice - Determination of Age - Rule 12(3), Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 -- Revision preferred against the appellate order dated 11.9.2013 (Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 6, Azamgarh) setting aside the order dated 1.7.2013 of the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Azamgarh, which had declared the revisionist a juvenile [Paras 2-4] - No matriculation certificate, school-leaving date-of-birth certificate, or municipal/panchayat birth certificate produced before the Board - Revisionist referred to the Chief Medical Officer, whose report dated 27.5.2013 opined his age as about 19 years on the date of examination, the F.I.R. having been lodged on 17.3.2013 for an incident of the same day [Para 6] - Held: Under the priority of proof prescribed by Rule 12(3), in the absence of documents under clause (a)(i) to (iii), medical opinion of the duly constituted Medical Board alone is authorised to determine age [Paras 5, 7] - Appellate order declaring the revisionist above 18 years of age and an adult on the date of occurrence suffers from no illegality, perversity or infirmity [Para 8]. Criminal Revision dismissed (Delivered by Hon'ble Prabhat Chandra Tripathi, J.) 1. List has been revised. Sri R.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Raghuvendra Prakash, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and the learned A.G.A. for the State are present. 2. This criminal revision has been preferred against the judgement and order dated 11.9.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.06, Azamgarh in Criminal Appeal No.58 of 2013 (Shanti Devi v. State of U.P.), whereby the order dated 1.7.2013 passed by the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Azamgarh in Application No.31 of 2013, case crime no.236 of 2013, under Sections 363, 366, 376 (2) (d), 392, 411 I.P.C. and 3/4 of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012, P.S. Phoolpur, District Azamgarh has been set aside and the appeal has been allowed. 830 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES 3. Learned counsel for the revisionist has argued that the revisionist-Shakeel was declared juvenile by order dated 1.7.2013 of the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Azamgarh. 4. The findings of the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Azamgarh was challenged in Criminal Appeal No.58 of 2013 (Shanti Devi v. State of U.P.), which was set aside by order dated 11.9.2013 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.06, Azamgarh and the accused revisionist was declared above the age of 18 years and as an adult on the date of occurrence. 5. Rule 12 (3) of The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 is quoted as below:- "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 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." 6. It is admitted fact that no educational records were produced to determine the age of the revisionist- Shakeel before the Juvenile Justice Board, Azamgarh and thereafter he was produced before the Chief Medical Officer, Azamgarh for age determination of the revisionist. The Chief Medical Officer, Azamgarh in his examination report of age dated 27.5.2013, has opined that the 8 All. Shakeel Vs State Of U.P. & Anr. 831 accused revisionist-Shakeel was about 19 years of age on the date of examination. The F.I.R. was lodged on 17.3.2013 mentioning therein the incident of the same day. 7. Thus, according to priority mentioned in Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, in absence of the educational certificates and the birth certificate given by a corporation or a municipal authority or a panchayat, the Medical Board is only authorized to declare the age of the juvenile or child. 8. So, it is evident that there is no illegality, perversity or infirmity in the impugned judgement and order dated 11.9.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.06, Azamgarh. The revision lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. 9. The revision is accordingly, dismissed. 10. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. ------------ 832 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES (2016) 8 ILRA 832 REVISIONAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 09.08.2016 BEFORE THE HON'BLE PRABHAT CHANDRA TRIPATHI, J. Criminal Revision No.- 3423 Of 2015 Akash Sharma @ Sanjay Bhatt ...Revisionist Versus State Of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties Counsel for Revisionist: Shashaank Mishra Counsel for Opposite Parties: Govt. Advocate, Pawan Kumar Mishra Juvenile Justice - Claim of Juvenility - Question of Identity of the Accused -- Revision against order dated 23.3.2013 of the Additional District and Sessions Judge (Ex-cadre), Room No. 22, Allahabad, in Sessions Trial No. 80 of 2009 (State vs. Sanjay Bhatt), under Section 8/21 N.D.P.S. Act, dismissing the claim of juvenility [Para 2] - Revisionist contended that he, named 'Sanjay Bhatt' in the police papers, is in fact 'Akash Sharma' and relied on his High School Mark Sheet/Certificate of 2004 (in the name Akash Sharma) to found the plea of juvenility [Paras 3-4] - Evidence of CW-1 (father) and CW-2 (school clerk) instead proved a scholar register entry in the name 'Sanjay Sharma', son of Uma Shankar Sharma, with a different date of birth (19.11.1991) [Para 5] - Addresses shown in the police papers (Naini, near Central Jail) and in the Election Commission identity card of Akash Sharma (Pura Fateh Mohammad, Karachhana) found to be entirely different, and it was conceded that the revisionist's father maintained two separate households/wives at two separate addresses [Paras 6-8] - Held: The identity of the revisionist 'Akash Sharma' and the accused 'Sanjay Bhatt' named in the F.I.R./charge-sheet is not established to be one and the same person; consequently, the educational certificates relied upon (being in the name of Akash Sharma) cannot enure to establish the age/juvenility of the accused named Sanjay Bhatt [Para 9] - Impugned order dismissing the claim of juvenility does not suffer from any legal infirmity or perversity. [Para 10] Criminal Revision dismissed (Delivered by Hon'ble Prabhat Chandra Tripathi, J.) 1. Heard Sri Shashank Mishra, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Pawan Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and learned A.G.A. for the opposite party no. 1. 2. This criminal revision has been preferred by the revisionist for setting aside the order dated 23.03.2013 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (Ex-cadre), Room No. 22, Allahabad in Sessions Trial No. 80 of 2009, arising out of Case Crime No. 293 of 2008 (State Vs. Sanjay Bhatt), under Section 8/21 N.D.P.S. Act, Police Station G.R.P., District Allahabad whereby the claim of juvenility of the revisionist has been dismissed.