A juvenile accused is entitled to a separate trial under section 24 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, and the trial court has the discretion to determine the age of the accused under section 32 of the Act.

( 1 ) THIS revision is directed against the order dated 6. 5. 1992 passed by the Special Judge (Dacoity Affected Areas), Etah, whereby charges against the revisionists under sections 365, 368, 302/149 and 201, I. P. C. were framed.

( 2 ) FACTUAL matrix of the case is simple. The revisionists along with co-accused Satish Chand and Mahesh are standing trial in the Court of the Special Judge (D. A. A.), Etah in Sessions Trial No. 124 of 1991 for the offences under sections 365, 368, 302/149 and 201, I. P. C. The charges against these accused persons were framed by the learned Judge on 6/5/1992 for the said offences. All the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Feeling aggrieved by the framing of charges against them, the revisionists preferred this revision in this Court.

( 3 ) WHEN this revision was taken up for admission on 24/7/1992, this Court had granted time upto 28. 7. 1992 to enable the learned counsel of the revisionists to move the trial court for separating the trial of accused Sanjiv alias Chhabi Ram on the ground that he is a juvenile. The proceedings of the trial was also directed to be stayed till 28/7/1992. In pursuance of this order, an application was filed on behalf of accused Sanjiv alias Chhabi Ram on 25/7/1992 before the learned Special Judge up the aforesaid Sessions Trial claiming that his date of birth is 15/11/1977 and, therefore, he being a juvenile, his trial should be separated. A similar application was also moved before the learned Special Judge on 6/8/1992 and a copy of the certificate of age of the accused Sanjiv alias Chhabi Ram was also filed. It further appears that by order dated 2/9/1992, the learned Special Judge observed that the proceedings regarding the minority of accused Sanjiv were pending before this Court and, therefore, it was not proper for him to proceed in that regard. Accordingly, the application filed on behalf of accused Sanjiv alias Chhabi Ram for separating his trial was not disposed of by the hearted Special Judge.

( 4 ) I have heard the learned counsel of the parties and perused the record.

( 5 ) THE learned counsel of the complainant, who has put in appearance in this Court raised a preliminary objection that the question regarding the age of accused Sanjiv was not agitated before the trial Judge till this revision was filed and, therefore, the question about hissing a juvenile and his trial being separated on that score cannot be gone into in his revision. So far as this contention goes, it is trite that this Court has power to exercise its revisional jurisdiction even suo motu, once the necessary facts are brought to the notice of this Court. In the instant case, it has been brought to the notice of this Court that accused Sanjiv was born on 15/11/1977 and that he was accordingly a juvenile on the date of the offence, i. e. 15/7/1991 and, therefore, his trial has to be separated in view of section 24 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986. Therefore, the preliminary objection raised by the learned counsel of the complainant is hereby overruled.

( 6 ) IT may also be pointed out that the learned counsel appearing for the revisionists confined his arguments in this Court with regard to accused Sanjiv being juvenile and, therefore, his trial being separated by the learned Special Judge. Even though this revision has been directed against the framing of charges against all the revisionists, it was not pressed before this Court during the course of arguments.

( 7 ) SO far as the question of accused Sanjiv being juvenile is concerned, it may be pointed out that according to Scholars Register and Transfer Certificate of Mahatma Gandhi Memorial Inter College, Jalesar (Etah) concerning this accused, his date of birth is recorded therein as 15/11/1977. The offences for which the accused are facing trial before the learned Special Judge took place on 15. 7. 199 1. It, therefore, appears that accused Sanjiv was less than 14 years of age on the date of the offen