BABLOO Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision has been directed against the order dated 28.5.1994 passed by the Special Judge, Etawah, in Sessions Trial No. 154 of 1994. By that order the learned Judge rejected the bail application filed by the revisionist on the ground that he was not a juvenile as claimed by him dated 9.5.1994. To -day it has been listed for admission hearing but since the lower court record has been received and lone opposite party, State of U.P. has been represented by the learned Addl. Government Advocate who is present, the case is taken up for final hearing in presence of both the parties.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the report submitted by the learned Magistrate, after enquiry made by him under Section 32 of the Juvenile Justice Act as regards determination of the age of the revisionist, should have been accepted by the learned trial court as the said report was sent to the learned judge under Section 8 of the said Act.

(3.) Where it appears to a competent authority that a person brought before it under any of the provisions of this Act 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. Section 8 provides that: Where any Magistrate not empowered to exercise the powers of a board or a Juvenile Court under this Act is of opinion that a person brought before him under any of the provisions of this Act is a juvenile, he shall record such opinion and forward the juvenile and the record of the proceeding to the competent authority having jurisdiction over the proceeding.