JUDGMENT Amar Saran, J.
1. This criminal revision has been preferred against the order dated 10.3.2004 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 7, Budaun, in Sessions Trial No. 730 of 2003 under Section 302 I.P.C., P.S. Gunnaur (Budaun), whereby the applications moved by the applicant-revisionist Vikash Sharma dated 15.12.2003 and 24.12.2003 were rejected and a prayer has been made that the applicant may be declared juvenile within the meaning of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, hereinafter referred to as the Act.
2. Heard Sri Apul Misra, learned Counsel for the revisionist and the learned A.G.A.
3. The basic contention of Sri Misra is that the incident in question took place on 26/27.7.2003. In the High School examination, which was held in the year 2001, the date of birth of the applicant-revisionist was mentioned as 2.4.8.1985. This would make the applicant one month under 18 years on the date of incident. The said contention did not find favour with the Trial Judge because he observed that although in his application dated 15.12.2003 the applicant has given his High School Certificate, which mentioned his date of birth as 24.8.1985, but in an application moved by the prosecution, which contained the School Certificate of Chhaya Public School, Modi Nagar and the transfer certificate which mentioned the date of birth of the applicant to be 24.8.1983 and it was argued that the second transfer certificate, which showed his date of birth as 24.5.1985 appears to have been manipulated, But the principal ground for not getting the applicant benefit of the Act was that, interalia in Arnit Das v. State of Bihar, it has been held that the material date when the age of the accused is to be calculated is the date when an accused appears in Court and claims the benefit of being of the juvenile under the Act and the material date when the applicant claims that he was juvenile when he appeared before the Court of C.J.M. was 15.12.2003. He appeared to have interpolated in the application dated 13.8.2003 when he surrendered before the Court that he was a juvenile. If 15.12.2003 was the taken as date, when the applicant moved the application for claiming the benefit of the Act, then even if the later date of birth (24.8.1985) is taken, the applicant Would have been more than 18 years on that date. However, Sri Apul Misra has contended that the basic premise for the Trial Judge to have recorded a finding that the applicant was below 18 years by taking the date of appearance in Court and making the application claiming the benefit of the Act in Court (i.e. 15.12.2003) is flawed, as a Constitution Bench in Pratap Singh v. State of Jharkhand has overruled the view taken in Arnit Das v. State of Biharand it is held that the reckoning date for determination of the age of juvenile offender is the date of offence and not the date when he was produced in Court/Competent Authority. By this logic the only date in respect to which the age of the applicant was to be considered was the date of incident i.e. 27.7.2003 and on that date if 24.8.1985 was taken as his date of birth, then he was below 18 years in age and he would be entitled to the benefit of the salutary provisions of the Act. However, unfortunately for the applicant, the matter cannot end here. It is quite clear that there has been some manipulation about the date of birth as according to the High School mark sheet and the certificate from the Shivkumar Hardevi Dharmarth Trust, Atrauli, Aligarh, the date of birth of the applicant is mentioned as 24.8.1985, which is date claimed by the applicant, but as per the certificate obtained from the Chhaya Public School, Modi Nagar and the transfer certificate of that School, the date of birth of the applicant is given as 24.4.1983. Recently in the decision in Ravinder Singh Gorakhi v. State of U.P.2006 (55) ACC, 814 (SC), it has been stated that the School Leaving Certificate cannot intrinsically be considered to be a very reliable proof of age, unless it is determined whether the original registers have been preserved in accordance with the provisions of Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act, as the dates which " are maintained in such registers cannot ipso facto be treated as an entry in any public or other official book, register or record stating a fact in issue or relevant fact, and maintained by a public servant in the discharge of his official duty or by any other person in performance of a duty specially enjoined by the law. I, therefore, think that in Ravinder Singh Gorakhi'scase the matter had been remanded to the Sessions Court for determining whether the applicant was a juvenile and relying on the certificate produced by the accused, the Sessions Court: had held that the applicant was under 18 years was a juvenile. The opinion of the Sessions Judge was not accepted by the Apex Court. Therefore in the present case also, I can only remand the case to the Sessions Court for getting the age of the applicant estimated after receiving all relevant evidence including medical evidence in accordance with the provisions of the Act. I, therefore, vacate the order passed earlier staying trial against the applicant in this case and direct the applicant to appear before the Trial Court within three weeks, which shall proceed to determine his age as directed above for estimating whether the applicant is entitled to the benefit of the provisions of the Act.
4. Office is directed to communicate this order to the Trial Court within three weeks.
5. The application is disposed of as above.