Ram Krishna Gautam, J. - This Criminal Revision under Section 397/401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, has been filed by Atul Singh Sengar, agaisnt order dated 3.7.2019, passed by Sessions Judge, Auraiya, in Criminal Appeal No. 13/2019 (State Vs. Atul Singh Sengar), arising out of Case Crime No. 132/2017, under Sections 498A, 304-B I.P.C. and 3/4 of D.P. Act, P.S. Auraiya, District Auraiya, with a prayer for setting aside impugned order, whereby, order of Juvenile Justice Board, Auraiya, dated 16.4.2019, has been set aside.

2. Learned counsel, for the revisionist, argued that Juvenile Justice Board, Auraiya, vide order dated 16.4.2019, determined revisionist accused- Atul Singh Sengar, juvenile under conflict with law and it was on the basis of date of birth entered in matriculation Mark-sheet-cum-Certificate, wherein date of birth was 10.8.1999. This occurrence was of 27.1.2017, hence, on the date of occurrence, revisionist was of age 17 years, 5 months and 17 days, i.e. below 18 years. Hence, was juvenile in conflict with law. Against this order, an appeal before Sessions Judge, Auraiya No. 13 of 2019 (State Vs. Atul Singh Sengar) was filed, wherein, impugned order of Juvenile Justice Board, Auraiya, was set aside. Accordingly, appeal was allowed. The date of birth entered in Basic School, was taken by learned Appellate Court and on the basis of it, impugned order was passed. Whereas, it was a conclusive proof of age, which was entered in High School Certificate and it was very well there on record. Once, the same was there, then no further school document was to be taken in consideration. But erroneously another school record was taken in consideration and on the basis of it, impugned order was passed. It was apparently error, on the face of record, under erroneous exercise of jurisdiction by Appellate Court. Hence, this revision with above prayer.

3. Learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant vehemently opposed. It was argued that school first attended was Basic School, wherein, revisionist himself had entered his date of birth and it was there in its admission form. This could not be tampered and it was 10.8.1997. But there was manipulation, overwriting and tampering in subsequent transfer certificate, wherein, date of birth was written as 10.8.1999. The same was there in alleged Mark-sheet-cum-Certificate of High School, wherein, date of birth was writtten as 10.8.1999, but the Board itself during inquiry had obtained report of Basic Shiksha Adhikari as well as Block Organiser, wherein, this fact was cogently pressed that there is tampering with manipulation in subsequent papers including scholar register regarding date of birth of accused Atul Singh Sengar, but a tampering could not be there in the admission form, which was filled by applicant-revisionist himself and therein date of birth was 10.8.1997. The same was further been substantiated and fortified by the date of birth entered for younger brother, which is of 1998. Meaning thereby, elder brother may not be of 1999, when younger brother is of 1998. This itself shows the manipulation and false averment by accused. Beside this, marriage was performed and a marriage by juvenile is not permissible under law. At that time, marriage was solemnized by mentioning Atul Singh Sengar as major. Subsequently, it is being said that he was juvenile. Revisionist may not blow cold and hot together at one place, he said himself to be major and then after gets married. Subsequently, he claimed himself to be juvenile. Appellate Court has rightly appreciated facts and law and impugned order has been passed in accordance with material placed on record. There is neither any illegality or apparent error on face of record or mis-exercise of jurisdiction. Hence, this revision merits dismissal. Be dismissed, accordingly.

4. Having heard learned counsels for both sides and gone through order of Juvenile Justice Board, Auraiya as well as of Appellate Court of Sessions Judge, Auraiya, it is apparent that Sessions Judge, has not added something from his side, rather, whatever is there on record, had been taken by him in his judicial decision making. The material on record is the oral testimony of Mahendra Singh, under who signature, school leaving certificate was issued and he had categorically said before Court that it was with no signature of him. Rather, it was a manipulated, fabricated and tampered documents. The entry of date of birth of 10.8.1999 in scholar register is also fabricated with overwriting, as was filed as Exhibit Kha, before Board. The admission form of revisionist is there and it is of no manipulation or overwriting, therein, date of birth is 10.8.1997. This date of birth has been duly verified by public servant, examined by Board that while getting admission in school first attended, date of birth was said and accepted to be of 10.8.1997 and this is the date of birth in school first attended and was duly verified by Basic Shiksha Adhikari, on record. Hence, prior to this Act of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, the situation of determination of age was otherwise. Therein, the provision was that firstly High School Certificate is to be taken and the date of birth entered, therein is to be taken for consideration. In case of failure, the second option was of school first attended, if the same is not available, then date of birth entered in local bodies register or gram sabha register was to be taken and if all these three categories were not available, then the option was of medical age determination by Medical Board. But in the new Act of 2015 and Rules made therein, Section 94 ofprovides that presumption and determination of age, wherein, sub-Section 2 provides :

(2) In case, the Committee or the Board has reasonable grounds for doubt regarding whether the person brought before it is a child or not, the Committee or the Board, as the case may be, shall undertake the process of age determination, by seeking evidence by obtaining -

(i) the date of birth certificate from the school, or the matriculation or equivalent certificate from the concerned examination Board, if available; and in the absence thereof;

(ii) the birth certificate given by a corporation or a muncipal authority or a panchayat;

(iii) and only in the absence of (i) and (ii) above, age shall be determined by an ossification test or any other latest medical age determination test conducted on the orders of the Committee or the Board:

Provided such age determination test conducted on the order of the Committee or the Board shall be completed within fifteen days from the date of such order.

5. Meaning thereby, date of birth certificate from the school or matriculation or equivalent certificate from the concerned examination Board, if available; and in the absence thereof---- Meaning thereby, school first attended has been kept prior to matriculation certificate. Meaning thereby, now there is no preference of High School Certificate and date of birth entered in it, rather, all education certificates have been kept at par and school first attended comes first. Hence, in the present case, which was of year 2017 i.e. after enforcement of above Rules, the school first attended was with priority. The citations discussed by Juvenile Justice Justice Board, Auraiya, relates with prior situations, whereas, the present case is to be governed by new Act and Rules made therein, as above. The school first attended is with date of birth 10.8.1997 and that is to be taken as a date of birth, for consideration of juvenility of accused Atul Singh Sengar. On the basis of it, learned Appellate Court of Sessions Judge, Auraiya, has passed impugned order that on the date of occurrence, present revisionist was not juvenile in conflict with law. Rather, he was major. This determination of learned Appellate Court is on the basis of material placed on record and in other attending circumstances, like younger brother may not be elder to elder brother and juvenile may not get married against the age of marriage under majority Act. Under all above facts and circumstances, this revision merits its dismissal.

6. Dismissed, as such.