- (1.) KHEM Karan, J. Heard Sri S. R. Rizvi, learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned counsel for the State. Par ties counsel have agreed that this revision may be disposed of at this stage as the point involved is purely a legal one.
(2.) IT appears from the perusal of the contents of the petition that the revisionist is being tried before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, for having committed offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC. Evidence of as many as 3 witnesses of the prosecution has already been recorded. The revisionist moved an application before the trial Court to the effect that he was juvenile and his case be dealt with under Juvenile Justice Act 1986. The learned Sessions Judge appears to have, vide order dated 25-7-2000 turned-down this request of the revisionist on the ground that it is too late to put the said plea and also on the ground that evidence has partly been recorded. The contention of Sri Rizvi is that the trial Court could not have rejected the plea of the accused on the said grounds and should have decided the question whether the revisionist was juvenile and should have been dealt with under Juvenile Justice Act. There is force in the argument of Sri Rizvi. The settled legal posi tion is that plea of a juvenile for his case for being dealt with under Juvenile Justice Act has to be considered on merits and a con scious decision is to be taken whether he is juvenile or' not. Such a plea can not be rejected on the ground that it was not raised earlier or on the ground some evidence has been recorded. In the case of Bhola Bhagat Singh, there are clear directions. on the point and have been circulated by the High Court amongst all the trial Courts. So the order passed by the learned Session Judge is not sound in law and deserves to be quashed. The order of the learned Sessions Judge, dated 25-7-2000 is quashed and he is directed to decide the question raised by the revisionist regarding his being juvenile or not within the meaning of Juvenile Justice Act, and then to pass suitable orders accord ing to law.
(3.) LET a copy of this order be sent to the trial Court for necessary action. Revision allowed. .;