MOHAMMAD RAFI Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned A.G.A. hair appeared on behalf of the State of U.P. With the consent of both the parties the matter is taken for final hearing at the stage of admission.

(2.) This is a revision application against the order dated 27.8.1994 passed by the learned Bird. Additional Sessions Judge, Budaun in Sessions Trial No. 390 of 1993. By the said order learned Addl. Sessions Judge held that though the accused revisionist is a minor yet the matter cannot be sent to Juvenile Court as the case has already been committed to the court of Sessions and trial is in progress. This is the grievance of theme revisionist.

(3.) It has been submitted that under the provisions of Sec. 8 of the Juvenile Justice Act learned Magistrate before whom the accused was produced ought to have started an inquiry to determine the age of the accused-revisionist and if found minor to forward the case to Juvenile Court for trial instead of committing the case to the court of Sessions. He has also submitted that when the matter was brought to the notice of the learned Sessions Judge he conducted an inquiry and found that the accused was a minor but declined to send the case to the Juvenile Court for trial which is illegal. Learned counsel has also submitted that the learned Sessions Judge has got no authority to start proceeding under Juvenile Justice Act to determine the age of the revisionist.