K. Natb, J. - (1.) THIS revision under Section 401 read with Section 482, CrPC has been filed against the order dated 4-4-87 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh, whereby he cancelled the bail granted to the revisionist Madan Lal by the Juvenile Court of Pratapgarh under the U. P. Children Act, 1951 and directed the case against the revisionist to be heard by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pratapgarh, in accordance with law.
(2.) IT appears that Madan Lal is the sole accused for offence punishable under Section 302, IPC, allegedly committed by him on 4-4-86. He surrendered in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate on 10-4-86 and was given judicial remand. Subsequently, he moved the Juvenile Court for grant of bail on the ground that he was a child within the meaning of U. P. Children Act (in short the Act). The applictiaon was rejected. The Juvenile Court entered upon the question as to whether the revisionist was or was not a child within the meaning of the Act. Evidence was produced before him, both on behalf of the revisionist as also on behalf of the prosecution. The revisionist was also produced before the Juvenile Judge. On a consideration of that material, the Juvenile Judge came to the finding that the revisionist was below 16 years of age and therefore was a child. However, he dismissed the application for bail on the ground that the nature of the offence committed by him was extremely brutal and inhuman. The revisionist then filed a second bail application. That application was allowed by the learned Juvenile Judge on 22-8-86.
(3.) THE informant, whose son had been murdered, then moved the court of Sessions for cancellation of bail. THE learned Sessions Judge held that the Juvenile Judge adopted illegal procedure. He observed that the revisionist had himself surrendered before the Chief Judicial Magistrare to determine in the first instant under section 3 (2) of the Act whether he was a child or not and if found to be a child to refer him to the Juvenile Court. He observed that the order passed by the Juvenile Judge was capable of being challenged in revision before him because the Juvenile Judge is a criminal court and all criminal Courts are subordinate to the Sessions Court for the purposes of Section 397 and 401 CrPC. He has also referred to the provisions of Section 62 of the Act and observed that the Chief Judicial Magistrate could have forwarded the petitioner to the Juvenile Court having jurisdiction. On this basis he passed the impugned order. I have heard the learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned State Counsel only on the question whether a revision could be maintainable in the court of Sessions. I have not found it necessary to enter upon the question whether or not the revisionist was in fact a child which could have made the provisions of the Act applicable to him consequently no opinion is expressed upon the finality or otherwise of the finding of the Juvenile Court about the revisionist being a child. The crux of the matter is that the Sessions Judge did not have jurisdiction to entertain a revision under Section 397, CrPC in view of the fact that as a matter of fact the Juvenile Court exercised the jurisdiction in the case. Once the Juvenile court acts under the Act the remedy in respect of the orders of the court lies under Section 79 of the Act. Sub-section (1) of Section 79 specifies that an appeal shall lie from an order made by the court under specified sections differently to the Sessions Judge or to the High Court. Sub-section (2) says that an order passed under the Act and not subject to appeal under subsection (1) may be revised by the High Court. An order of appeal is not an appealable order under Section 79 (2) of the Act.;