MOHAMMED ARIF Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Section 482 Cr. P. C. is directed against two orders dated 8. 2. 2002 and 12. 11. 2002.

(2.) IN brief the facts of the case are that one F. I. R. No. 425/2001 was registered at police station Hindaun City implicating the accused petitioner, his mother and brothers for offences under various Sections of I. P. C. including Sec. 302 I. P. C. During investigation, the accused petitioner was arrested on 14. 8. 2001 treating him above the age of 18 years. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet came to be filed and case was committed to sessions, which came up for trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hindaun City. Sessions Case No. 112/2001 was registered. An application for bail u/sec. 439 Cr. P. C. was moved on behalf of the accused petitioner. Learned Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated 13. 1. 2001 directed the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate to conduct an inquiry about the age of the accused petitioner. IN compliance of this order, the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate conducted inquiry and vide the first impugned order dated 8. 2. 2002 came to this conclusion that the accused petitioner is not below the age of 18 years.

(3.) SUB-section 2 of Section 6 of the Act, 2000 provides that the powers conferred on the Board by or under this Act may also be exercised by the High Court and the Court of Sessions when the proceeding comes before him in appeal, revision or otherwise. In view of such specific provisions, it seems unnecessary in the instant case to decide the question as to whether the learned A. C. J. M. was competent or not to determine the age of the accused petitioner as the case had already been committed to the Court of Sessions and the Sessions Case No. 112/2001 was pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Hindaun City. Therefore, in view of SUB-section 2 of Section 7 of the Act, 2000, the learned Additional Sessions Judge was empowered to hold the inquiry regarding the age of the accused petitioner and instead of directing the learned A. C. J. M. learned trial Judge himself should have conducted this inquiry.