P.K.LOHRA,J. - (1.) By the instant revision petition, petitioner-Ajay Legha, who is facing trial for offence under Sections 302 and 120B IPC and Section 3/25 of the Arms Act, has assailed impugned order dated 19th of November, 2016, passed by Special Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (P.C.P.N.D.T. Act Cases), Bikaner (for short, 'learned trial Court'). Trial against petitioner and other accused persons is in vogue before Additional District and Sessions Judge No.1, Bikaner (for short, 'learned Sessions Court').
(2.) The facts, apposite for the purpose of this petition, are that pursuant to FIR No.22/2016, registered at Police Station Beechwal, District Bikaner, during the investigation carried out, police has collected incriminating evidence against petitioner and other accused persons. Relying on the evidence, collected during investigation, and the recoveries made from accused persons under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, charge-sheet has been filed against all the accused persons including the petitioner before learned trial Court. The learned trial Court, thereafter, found that the offences attributed to the accused persons are triable by Court of Sessions, therefore, committed the case to Sessions Court under Section 209 Cr.P.C.
(3.) When trial was going on, before learned Sessions Court, at the behest of petitioner, an application, under Section 9(2) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (for short, 'Act of 2015'), was filed stating therein that, as per school record and matriculation certificate, his date of birth is 5th of June, 1998, and, therefore, on the date of commission of offence, i.e., 30th of January, 2016, he was a juvenile, having attained age of 17 years, 7 months and 25 days. The learned Sessions Court, while resorting to sub section (2) of Section 9 of the Act of 2015, directed the learned trial Court to make an inquiry and consider such evidence as may be necessary to determine age of the petitioner. It is in that background, the learned trial Court proceeded to make inquiry into the matter for determining age of the petitioner after soliciting requisite documents from petitioner and the investigating agency. The learned trial Court referred to Section 94 of the Act of 2015 and finally concluded that petitioner's date of birth, as per record of his school, which he first attended, is 5th of June, 1996, and therefore, on the date of commission of the alleged offence he was not a juvenile or child in conflict with law. With this finding, the learned trial Court forwarded report to the learned Sessions Court.;