- (1.) O. P. Jain, J. Accused Saleem alias Raju and Nadeem alias Raja (hereinafter referred as Saleem and Nadeem) are al leged to have committed an offence under Section 302,i. P. C. on 28th July, 1996 along with another accused named Guddu. Saleem and Nadeem claim that their date of birth is 20-6-1981 and 21-6-1982 respec tively. Their bail application was allowed by Juvenile Court on 20th January, 1997 holding that both of them were below 16 years of age on the date of the incident.
(2.) BEING aggrieved against the order of release on bail, complainant Mohd. Is-mile filed two separate appeals before the Sessions Judge which were heard together and on 23rd Sept. 1997 the learned Ses sions Judge cancelled the bail granted to Nadeem on the ground that the bail order dated 20th January, 1997 was obtained from the Juvenile Court by concealing the tact that an earlier bail application of Nadeem had already been dismissed by the Sessions Judge on 18th October, 1996. Another reason given by the learned Sessions Judge for cancelling the bail granted to Nadeem was that in, the earlier bail application he was not claimed to be a juvenile. The learned Sessions Judge al lowed accused Saleem to remain on bail till the question of age is determined by the Juvenile Court in accordance with Section 32 of the Juvenile Justice Act of 1986 (hereinafter called the Act ). The learned Sessions Judge ordered the Juvenile Court to conduct enquiry under Section 32 of the Act and then pass neces sary orders in respect of the bail of Saleem. The bail granted to Nadeem was cancelled but the enquiry with respect of the age was ordered to be held in case of Nadeem also and the Juvenile Court was directed to pass suitable orders after determining the age of the accused. In pursuance of order dated 23-9-1997 passed by learned Sessions Judge the Juvenile Court commenced an enquiry and it appears that during the pendency of the said enquiry the complainant filed an application praying that the accused may be got examined by a Medical Board with a view to determine their age. This application was rejected by the Juvenile Court on 4-2- 1998. The complainant filed an appeal under Section 37 of the Act which was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge on 26-3- 1998. Under these circumstances the present revision has been filed by com plainant Mohd. Ismile. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and learned A. G. A. for the State and have gone through the record.
(3.) SECTION 32 (1) of the Act reads as under: "where it appear v to a competent authority that a person brought before it under any of the provisions of this Act (otherwise than for the purpose of giving evidence) is a juvenile, the competent authority shall make due inquiry as to the age of that person and for that purpose shall take such evidence as may be necessary and shall record a finding whether the person is a juvenile or not, stating his age as nearly as may be. " A bare perusal of the provisions shows that the Court is required to take "such evidence as may be necessary" and then gave a finding whether the person is juvenile or not. The Section neither casts a duly on the Court to send the accused for medical examination not it prohibits the same. So far as order dated 4-2-1998 is concerned, it appears from certain obser vations made by the learned Judge of Juvenile Court that the prayer for sending the accused for medical examination was not finally turned down. In the last two paragraphs of order dated 4-2-1993 the Court has observed as under:;