- (1.) S. R. Bhargava, J. This revision has arisen in peculiar circumstances.
(2.) REVISIONIST Kali Charan was hauled up in connection with offence under Section 276 I. P. C. alleged to have been committed by him on 16. 6. 87. Bail application was moved before the Children Judge. In his order dated 7th September, 1987 the said Judge found that the revisionist was above 16 years of age, hence the case was beyond his jurisdiction, and dismissed his bail application. Finding regarding age of the revisionist was based on medical evidence and documents filed by both the sides. There was no regular inquiry regarding age. Revisionist fell aggrieved with the finding of the Children Judge regarding his age. He preferred this revision. It may be noted that in 1986 Juvenile Justice Act was passed. It is not disputed for the purpose of this revision that the said Act was in force in Uttar Pradesh on the date of offence alleged to have been committed by the revisionist. Regarding determination of ago, three are there provisions in this Act. Section 7 lays down that when any Magistrate not empowered to exercise the powers of a Board or a Juvenile Court under this Act is of the opinion that a person brought before him is a juvenile, he should record such opinion and forward the juvenile and the record of the proceeding to the competent authority having jurisdiction over the proceeding. A bare reading of this section shows that if there is a claim before the Magistrate that a particular accused produced before him is a juvenile and if after inquiry or on the appearance of the accused the Magistrate feels satisfied that the accused is a juvenile, he should forward the accused and the proceeding to the Competent Authority. Then there is Section 18 (1) in the Act which lays down that when any person accused of a bailable or non-bailable offence and apparently a juvenile is arrested or detained or appears or is brought before a juvenile court, such person should not withstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure or any other law, be released on bail. Then there is Section 32 (1) of the Act which empowers the Com petent Authority to determine the age of an accused and record a finding if he is juvenile or not.
(3.) FROM bare reading of Section 18 (1) of the Juvenile Justice Act, it is obvious that Juvenile Court is entitled to grant bail to an accused if he is apparently a juvenile. In the instant case the revisionist was not apparently a juvenile. Then for purposes of trial, the case of the revisionist could have been referred to the Competent Authority for deter mination of his age under Section 32 of the Juvenile Justice Act. The other course possible is that when the revisionist is produced before regular Magistrate, not having jurisdiction over the juvenile under the Juvenile Justice Act the accused may claim that he was juvenile on the date of offence and should be tried by the Juvenile Court. In that event the Magistrate concerned may enter into inquiry about the age of the revisionist and form opinion whether he was juvenile on the date of offence or not If the Magistrate finds that the revisionist was juvenile, on the date of offence, he may forward his case alongwith the proceedings to the Competent Authority under Section 7 of the Juvenile Justice Act. So far as finding recorded by the Children Judge regarding age at the stage of bail is concerned, it is neither final nor conclusive. It was recorded for purposes of disposal of bail application. The Children Judge could not have entered into inquiry regarding age of the revisionist. If apparently the revisionist did not appear to be juvenile to the Children Judge, he should have refused bail on that very ground. I conclude that the finding of the Children Judge regarding age of the applicant is without jurisdiction and nullity. Age of the revisionist shall be liable to be determined by the Magistrate or the Competent Authority, as observed above.;