<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2019 (2) TMI 2124 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=460508</link>
    <description>A claim of juvenility may be raised at any stage and must be tested through the inquiry prescribed by Section 7A of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 read with Rule 12 of the 2007 Rules. For age determination, the certificate of the first attended school is primary evidence and, when duly verified and corroborated, can constitute conclusive proof of age. On the stated facts, school records and transfer certificates showed a date of birth of 12.07.1984, placing the appellant below 18 years on the date of the offence. The contrary view was rejected because it was not based on the statutory inquiry procedure, and the appellant was treated as a juvenile entitled to protection under the Act.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 22 Feb 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 29 Jan 2025 13:59:15 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=793062" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (2) TMI 2124 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=460508</link>
      <description>A claim of juvenility may be raised at any stage and must be tested through the inquiry prescribed by Section 7A of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 read with Rule 12 of the 2007 Rules. For age determination, the certificate of the first attended school is primary evidence and, when duly verified and corroborated, can constitute conclusive proof of age. On the stated facts, school records and transfer certificates showed a date of birth of 12.07.1984, placing the appellant below 18 years on the date of the offence. The contrary view was rejected because it was not based on the statutory inquiry procedure, and the appellant was treated as a juvenile entitled to protection under the Act.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 22 Feb 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=460508</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>