Reserved on 01.9.2025 Delivered on 22.9.2025 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 442 of 2018 Court No. - 47 HON'BLE SIDDHARTH, J. 1. Despite service of notice on opposite party no.2, no one has appeared to oppose this criminal revision. 2. Heard Sri Lalit Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the revisionist; learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record. 3. The present criminal revision has been filed to set and aside the orders dated 05.02.2013 & 04.01.2018 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, 1st, Gautam Buddh Nagar, in S.T. No.721 of 2011 arising out of Case Crime No. 283 of 2011, under Sections 302, 201, 394, 411 I.P.C., Police Station Dadari, District Gautam Buddh Nagar. 4. An application was made before the Children's Court praying for declaring the revisionist as juvenile on the ground that his date of birth is 16.4.1995 and on the date of incident dated 27.5.2011, he was juvenile. He has already been declared juvenile by Juvenile Justice Board in Case Crime No.203 of 2011, under Sections 307, 467, 468, 471, 34 IPC, Police Station Farah, District Mathura by the order dated 03.1.2012. 5. The aforesaid order of Juvenile Justice Board dated 03.1.2012 alongwith photocopy of transfer certificate, photocopy of admission form, photocopy of High School Examination marks-sheet, photocopy of scholarship register & transfer certificate and photocopy of statement of witnesses recorded in Case Crime No.203 of 2011 were produced in evidence. Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Lalit Kumar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Shiv Singh .....Revisionist(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) 6. Children's court found that the evidence led in another case is not relevant for the present case. Even the certified copy of the order dated 03.1.2012 passed by Juvenile Justice Board in Case Crime No. 203 of 2011 was not filed. All other documents were photocopies, which were not even supported by any affidavit nor any statement of witness. The photocopies are not admissible in evidence and hence Children's court rejected the application filed by the revisionist. 7. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the order passed by the Children's court is absolutely illegal. The court ought have accepted the evidence produced before it by the accused-revisionist. 8. Leaned AGA has submitted that the burden of proof was on the revisionist to prove that he was juvenile at the time of alleged incident, which was clearly not done by the revisionist and hence his claim was rightly rejected. 9. After hearing the rival contentions, this Court finds that the documents produced before the Children's Court by the revisionist were all public documents, but their photocopies were filed. Neither any affidavit in support of the documents nor any witness was produced to prove the photocopies of the documents from the original record. The photocopies of the transfer certificate, High School marks-sheet and transfer certificates from school were required to be proved as per Section 35 Indian Evidence Act. Without proof of such documents, they were not required to be read in evidence. Hence revisional court has rightly discarded the photocopies of the documents produced before the Children's court. Even the certified copy of the order passed by the Juvenile Justice Board in Case Crime No. 203 of 2011 was not produced before the court. Hence order passed by the Children's Court does not suffers from any illegality. It is, hereby, confirmed. 10. The above noted criminal revision lacks merits and is hereby dismissed. 11. Office is directed to return the record the trial court, within a week. September 22, 2025 Ruchi Agrahari CRLR No. 442 of 2018 2 (Siddharth,J.) Digitally signed by :- RUCHI AGRAHARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad