- (1.) K. C. Bhargava, J. This revision is directed against the order, dated 20-7-19-H passed by the III Additional Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh.
(2.) THE short point which requires decision in the present case is as to whether the ill Additional Sessions Judge was justified in deciding the age of the applicants who are alleged to be juvenile. Heard learned counsel for the applicants as well as learned Additional Government Advocate. Learned counsel for the applicants has argued that the Additional Sessions Judge had no jurisdictions to decide the question as to whether the applicants were juvenile or not. According to the learned counsel the juris diction vests with the concerned Magistrate and he should have decided the age of the applicants.
(3.) ON the other hand learned Additional Government Advocate has argued that the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity. From a perusal of the order dated 20-7-1991 passed by the III Addititional Session Judge it will be clear that a question was raised |bout the age of the applicant. According to the learned counsel for applicants both the applicants were minor on the date when the incident took place. He has placed reliance on the case of Gopinath Ghosh v. State of West Bengal, 1984 SCC (Cri) 478. In this case Hon'ble Supreme Court held that "whenever a case is brought before the Magistrate and the accused appears to be aged 21 years or below |before proceeding with the trial or undertaking an inquiry must be made about the age of the accused on the date of the occurrence. This ought to be more so where Special Acts dealing with juvenile delinquent are in force. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Magistrate may as well call upon accused also to lead evidence about his age. Thereafter, the learned magistrate may proceed in accordance with law. ";