The competent authority under the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, is the Juvenile Court or any court empowered under sub-Section (2) of Section 7 of the Act, and the lower Court was not competent to decide the juvenile status of the accused.

( 1 ) HEARD the learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned A. G. A.

( 2 ) REVISIONIST Makrand was summoned by VI Additional Sessions Judge, Bijnor in S. T. No. 238 of 1992 under Section 319, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Act II of 1974 ). He had arrived at the conclusion that the revisionist also had participated in the incident as an accused. The revisionist submitted before the lower Court that he was a juvenile and he should be got tried by a Juvenile Court. The prosecution had opposed the prayer of the revisionist on the ground that he was not a juvenile on the date of the incident i. e. 21-3-1992. The lower Court instead of referring the question as to whether Makrand was a juvenile on the date of the incident on the competent authority proceeded to decide the same himself although he had got no jurisdiction for the same.

( 3 ) THIS Court, in more than one decision, has held that the competent authority as contemplated by Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, was the Juvenile Court and where no such Juvenile Court had been constituted, included any court empowered under sub-Section (2) of Section 7 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 to exercise the powers conferred on Juvenile Court. In the instant case, a Juvenile Court is there. It has been pointed out that District Bijnor in which the incident had taken place is within the jurisdiction of Juvenile Court, Moradabad. According to Section 32 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, the enquiry into the question as to whether the accused was juvenile was to be made by the competent authority which was the Juvenile Court itself at Moradabad. The lower Court, in any view of the matter, was not competent to hold the enquiry itself into the aforesaid question. This view was taken by this Court in its decision reported in 1994 (31) Acc at page 650, Kamlesh Kumar v. State of U. P. This Court had taken into consideration one of its earlier decisions reported in 1993 Acc at page 138, Nazmul (minor) v. State of U. P.

( 4 ) THE revision application, therefore, is allowed. The impugned order dated 2-1-1996 is quashed and the lower Court is directed to refer the matter relating to the question as to whether Makrand was juvenile on the date of the incident to the competent authority for decision in accordance with law.

( 5 ) THE revision application is disposed of finally. Revision allowed.

.