- (1.) O. P. Pradhan, J. This revision under Section 38 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 is directed against the order dated 6-12- 1993 passed by Sri Lekha Singh, Ilnd Additional Session Judge, Unnao in Sessions trial No. 516 of 1992 under Sections 147,148,149,223, 307 and 302 I. P. C.
(2.) FACTS giving rise to this revision lie in a short compass. The revisionists alongwith ten other accused persons are being prosecuted under Section 147,148,149,323,307 and 302 I. P. C. , for an incident which took place on 23-3-1992. According to the revisionists, they were 'juveniles' within the meaning of said Act on the date of incident. It appears that the cases of juveniles of district Unnao are dealt with by the Juvenile Court at Lucknow. In April, 1992,. . . . . . . working in the Courts at Lucknow was paralysed on account of lawyer's strike and, therefore, the jurisdiction of Lucknow Courts was transferred during the period of strike to Unnao by the Hon'ble High Court. Consequently the jurisdiction of Lucknow juvenile Court was also transferred to the Court of C. J. M. Unnao. An applica tion for bail was filed before the C. J. M. , Unnao but it was rejected on 4-4-1992. Against the order of rejection, an appeal was filed under Section 37 of the aforesaid Act and this appeal was allows by the Sessions Judge, Unnao on 24-4-1992. The learned Sessions Judge came to find prima-facie that the revisionists were juveniles on the date of Commission of crime and, therefore, he granted bail to the revisionists. The Sessions trial No. 516 of 1992 is pending in the Court of IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Unnao and accordingly on 0-12-1993, an application on behalf of revisionists was moved before the said Court to separate their trial because they could not be tried with non-juveniles. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Unnao by means of the impugned order directed the 1st Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Unnao to determine the age of the revisionists. Feeling aggrieved by this order, the revisionists have preferred this revisions. It has been urged on behalf of revisionists that once the learned Sessions Judge, Unnao had found revisionists to be juveniles and granted bail, it was not open to the learned Additional Sessions Judge to go into that question again and remit the case for determination of age of the revisionists to the 1st Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Unnao. It has further been contended on behalf of revisionists that the lawyer's strike having come to an end, the jurisdiction of the juvenile Court at Lucknow had revived and, therefore, in any case, the determination of the age of the revisionists had to be made by the juvenile Court at Lucknow and not the 1st Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Unnao. Section 24 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 mandates that no juvenile shall be tried jointly with a non- juvenile and that the Court shall direct separate trials of the juveniles and the non-juveniles. The learned Sessions Judge, Unnao while deciding the appeal against the rejection of the bail application of the revisionists had simply satisfied himself prima-facie on the point if the appellants were juveniles on the date of commission of the offences. It was on that premise that he granted bail to the revisionists. It was not that the learned Sessions Judge had actually determined the age of the revisionists.
(3.) IT has not been disputed before this Court that after the lawyer's strike at Lucknow ended, the jurisdiction of the juvenile Court at Lucknow which also dealt with the cases of juveniles of Unnao district revived. The learned Additional Sessions Judge could get the age of the revisionists determined by the competent Court in order to decide if it revisionists were juveniles on the date of Commission of the offences but he fellow into error in remitting the case to the 1st Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Unnao for the purpose inasmuch as the 1st Additional Judicial Magistrate, Unnao was not competent to determine the question of age of the revisionists who claimed to be juveniles on the date of Commission of the offences. The competent Court in the facts and circumstances of this case was juvenile Court at Lucknow for the said purpose. Accordingly the part of the impugned order dated 6-12-1993 whereby 1st Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Unnao was directed to determine the age of the revisionists is liable to be quashed. In the result, this revision is partly allowed and the direction given in the impugned order dated 6-12- 1993 to the Court of 1st Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Unnao for determination of the age of the revisionists is hereby set aside. Instead of 1st Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Unnao, the juvenile Court at Lucknow which is also looking after the cases of Unnao district, will determine the age of the revisionists with the help of the medical board and remit its finding to the Court of the IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Unnao within two months from the date of receipt of this order. The revisionists are directed to appear before the Juvenile Court at Lucknow on 20-10-1994 and produce a certified copy of this order in the said Court. Interim stay order is hereby vacated. Revision partly allowed. .;