Dismissed

Rahul Prajapati Minor v. State of U.P. Thru D.M. and Another

Allahabad HC9 May 2018CRLR/2771/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal revision was preferred against orders rejecting the revisionist's appeal to be declared a juvenile. The court examined the determination of age based on school certificates and found no illegality in the lower courts rejecting the high school certificate in favor of the primary school record.

What did the court decide?

The criminal revision against the Juvenile Justice Board's decision regarding the revisionist's age was dismissed, upholding the determination based on the primary school certificate.

Rahul Prajapati Minor Vs State of U.P… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 28

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2771 of 2015

¶3

Revisionist :- Rahul Prajapati (Minor) Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru D.M. And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- K.D. Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt.Advocate,Bipin Lal Srivastava,Siddhartha Varma

¶4

Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J.

¶5

Heard Sri K.D. Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Bipin Lal Srivastava, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 and Sri L.D. Rajbhar, learned A.G.A., for the State.

¶6

This criminal revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 5.6.2015 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 5, Varanasi in Criminal Appeal No. 170 of 2014 (Rahul Prajapati (minor) Vs. State of U.P. and others) dismissing the appeal against the order dated 13.10.2014 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Ram Nagar, Varanasi in Case Crime No. 132 of 2014 under Sections 354, 323 IPC and Section 8 POCSO Act, Police Station Phulpur, District Varanasi. By the order dated 13.10.2014, application of the revisionist to declare him juvenile was rejected.

¶7

Learned counsel for the revisionist contended that as per Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, if matriculation or equivalent certificate is available, then Juvenile Justice Board would be bound to consider the age of juvenile on the basis of matriculation certificate. Matriculation certificate submitted by the revisionist is not under challenge.

¶8

Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and learned A.G.A., for the State contended that there is no illegality in the impugned order passed by the courts below.

¶9

The Juvenile Justice Board has decided the age of revisionist/juvenile on the basis of school certificate issued by Primary School, Phulpur where he was first admitted. In that school certificate, date of birth of revisionist is mentioned as 8.7.1995. The Juvenile Justice Board held that 2.7.1999, date of birth of revisionist mentioned in the high school certificate is false. The Juvenile Justice Board held that it is not disputed that

¶10

revisionist was admitted in Primary School, Phulpur in the year 2001. A child of two years old cannot go school. However, it is presumed that date of birth 2.7.1999 as mentioned in the high school is correct, then at the time of admission in the Primary School, Phulpur, the age of revisionist will be only two years which is not possible.

¶11

On this ground, the Juvenile Justice Board has held that the date of birth mentioned in the high school is false.

¶12

As per Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, if matriculation or equivalent certificate is available, then date of birth will be determined on the basis of date of birth mentioned in that certificate but if court arrives at conclusion that date of birth mentioned in the high school is false on the basis of substantive evidence on the record, then date of birth of a juvenile shall be determined on the basis of date of birth mentioned in certificate of school first attended by him.

¶13

Perused the impugned orders passed by the courts below. I find no illegality in the impugned orders passed by the courts below.

¶14

Accordingly, this criminal revision stands dismissed .

¶15

Order Date :- 9.5.2018 Jaswant

Rahul Prajapati Minor v. State of U.P. Thru D.M. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul Prajapati Minor v. State of U.P. Thru D.M. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajesh Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Pushpa Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Aradhana Vs State of U.P. and Another

Radhey Shyam Vs State

Radhey Shyam Vs State and Other

Shiva Kumar and Others Vs State and Another