The main legal principle established in the judgment is that the Mysore Children Act, 1964 confers exclusive jurisdiction on the Juvenile Court to try cases involving juvenile offenders, superseding the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure related to the trial of such offences by other courts.

( 1 ) THESE four references have been made by the Sessions Judge, Gulbarga to quash the orders of commitment under Section 215 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in each of the cases, on the ground that the respondent or the respondents committed to his Court for trial have to be tried under the Mysore Children Act, 1964 and that the order of commitment in each of the cases is contrary to law. None of the respondents in any of the cases appeared after due notice. We therefore requested Mr. Malimath to appear as Amicus curiae.

( 2 ) THERE is no dispute that none of the respondents in these cases has attained the age of 16 years and is therefore a child as defined in Section 4 (1) (f) of the Mysore Children Act 1964. The sole ground on which the learned Sessions Judge has sought for the quashing of the order of commitment in each case is that the respondent or respondents are wholly triable by a Juvenile court under the provisions of the Mysore Children Act, 1964 and that the order of. commitment of the respondent or respondents is contrary to law.

( 3 ) MR. Ashrit the learned Government Pleader who has appeared on behalf of the State has supported the references and has sought to sustain them by placing reliance on the decision of this Court in Siddappa v. State of Mysore 1965 (2) Mys. LJ 326, in which it has been laid down that Section 8 of the Mysore Children Act, 1961 confers on a Magistrate presiding over the juvenile Court exclusive jurisdiction to try a juvenile offender though charged with the offence of murder. Mr. Malimath has submitted that the provisions contained in Section 8 (1) of the mysore Children Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) do not take away the power of enquiry into cases triable by the court of session conferred on a Magistrate of the First Class and other magistrates mentioned in Section 206 under Chapter XVIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The three children in Criminal Revision Case No. 22 of 1965 are charged with an offence punishable under Section 127 of the Indian Railways Act which is punishable with imprisonment for life, while the two children in Criminal Revision case No. 23 of 1965 have been charged with an offence punishable under Section 307 (read with other Sections) of the Indian Penal Code punishable with imprisonment for life; the two children in Criminal Revision Case No. 24 of 1965 are charged, along with others, with the offence of murder punishable under Sec, 302 read with other Sections of the Indian Penal Code; the child in Criminal Revision Case No. 42 of 1965 is a girl who has not attained the age of 18 years and is a child under Section 4 (1) (f) of the act. She has been charged, along with others, with an offence punishable under Section 307 (read with other Sections) punishable with imprisonment for life. The Magistrate has committed these accused under Section 207a of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

( 4 ) NOW, we have to see whether the order of commitment passed in each of these cases is contrary to the provisions of Section 8 (1) of the Act and is therefore required to be quashed.

( 5 ) THE preamble to the Act indicates that it consolidates and amends the law for the trial of juvenile offenders in the State of Mysore and for certain other purposes specified therein. Chapters I to IV and certain other Chapters of the Act came into force in the whole State of mysore on April 9, 1964, 'juvenile offender' is defined in Section 4 (1) (n) as meaning 'any child who has been found to have committed an offence'. We have already indicated that according to section 4 (1) (f) of the Act 'child' means 'a boy who has not attained the age of sixteen years, or a girl, who has not attained the age of eighteen years'. It is therefore clear that the respondents in all these cases are juvenile offenders.

( 6 ) THE provisions contained in Chapter II of the Act define the powers and functions of courts having jurisdiction under the Act. Section 7 (1) empowers th