- (1.) Heard learned Counsel for the parties, lit appears that the question of the age of the revisionist was raised before the Sessions Judge. in this matter the revisionist claimed that he was less than 16 years on the date of occurrence. However, the Sessions Judge passed the impugned order deciding the question of age himself.
(2.) Section 8 of the Juvenile Justice Act confers Jurisdiction of determining the age of the accused on the date of occurrence only on the Special Magistrate empowered under the provisions of Juvenile Justice Act, 1986. Learned Counsel for the revisionist has also cited the decision of this Court in Nazmul (minor) and Anr. v. State of U.P.,1993 ACC 138 in support of his argument. Having gone through this decision, I find that learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Bijnor, had no Jurisdiction to pass the impugned order. He was duty-bound under the provisions of Juvenile Justice Act to refer this matter to the Magistrate having Jurisdiction. The order dated 22nd June, 1994, Is, therefore, set aside. The matter will have to be remitted to the Magistrate having Jurisdiction to try this case to decide the question of age of the revisionist on the date of occurrence.
(3.) The revision is therefore allowed and the order dated 22nd June, 1994 passed by 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Bijnor, in Sessions Trial No. 115 of 1994 State v. Kamlesh alias Manki is set aside. The commitment of the revisionist to the court of Sessions is also set aside. Let the matter be remitted by the Court of Sessions to the Magistrate having Jurisdiction for determination of the age of the revisionist on the date of occurrence in accordance with law.;