KALI CHARAN Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S. R. Bhargava, J. This revision has arisen in peculiar circumstances.

(2.) REVISIONIST Kali Charan was hauled up in connection with offence under Section 276 I. P. C. alleged to have been committed by him on 16. 6. 87. Bail application was moved before the Children Judge. In his order dated 7th September, 1987 the said Judge found that the revisionist was above 16 years of age, hence the case was beyond his jurisdiction, and dismissed his bail application. Finding regarding age of the revisionist was based on medical evidence and documents filed by both the sides. There was no regular inquiry regarding age.

(3.) FROM bare reading of Section 18 (1) of the Juvenile Justice Act, it is obvious that Juvenile Court is entitled to grant bail to an accused if he is apparently a juvenile. In the instant case the revisionist was not apparently a juvenile. Then for purposes of trial, the case of the revisionist could have been referred to the Competent Authority for deter mination of his age under Section 32 of the Juvenile Justice Act. The other course possible is that when the revisionist is produced before regular Magistrate, not having jurisdiction over the juvenile under the Juvenile Justice Act the accused may claim that he was juvenile on the date of offence and should be tried by the Juvenile Court. In that event the Magistrate concerned may enter into inquiry about the age of the revisionist and form opinion whether he was juvenile on the date of offence or not If the Magistrate finds that the revisionist was juvenile, on the date of offence, he may forward his case alongwith the proceedings to the Competent Authority under Section 7 of the Juvenile Justice Act.