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

( 2 ) THIS application has been filed challenging the order dated 6-5-2005 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Baghpat declining to entertain an application moved on behalf of the applicants claiming to be a juvenile and is entitled for protection under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred as the Act ). A copy of the application has been annexed as Annexure-5 to the affidavit, stating therein that the two sessions trial were amalgamated and S. T. No. 425 of 2003 is the leading case. The applicants Pankaj and neeraj claimed to be minor and in the ciricumstances, a separate trial was liable to be conducted. It was stated in the application that they were students at the time of occurrence. The date of birth of the applicant Pankaj son of sri Charan Singh Saroha is 27-3-1986 according to High School Certificate and the applicant No. 2 son of Sri Raj singh was born on 22-11 -1987 as recorded in the School Leaving Certificate. The application was moved on 6-5-2005 that common trial should not proceed but the application was not entertained on the ground that since the Juvenile Justice Board has been constituted at Meerut, it is the jurisdiction of the Board to decide and declare an accused as juvenile. This application has been moved challenging the said order. It has been argued that Section 7 of the Act prescribes procedure to be followed by a magistrate not empowered under the Act. Sub clause (1) of Section 7 provides that when any Magistrate not empowered to exercise the powers of a board constituted under the Act is of the opinion that a person brought before him under any of the provisions of the Act, is a juvenile of the child, he shall without any delay record such opinion and forward the juvenile to the competent authority having jurisdiction over the proceeding. Sub clause (2) of Section 7 provides that the competent authority to which such proceedings are forwarded under sub section (1) shall hold the inquiry as if the juvenile or the child had originally been brought before it. In the circumstances, it was the duty of the Court to have ascertained and formed an opinion whether the person, such as the applicants in the instant case, was a juvenile in his opinion or not. He could not have thrown away the applicants and refused to entertain it only because a Juvenile Justice Board has now been constituted at Meerut. It is also relevant to point out that section 6 sub clause (2) of the Act 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 Session, when the proceeding comes before them in appeal, revision or otherwise. In the present case, this application was moved before the learned Sessions judge, Baghpat and, therefore, he was bound to make preliminary inquiry and come to a conclusion, instead of relegating the applicants to approach the Board. It is also noteworthy that the Juvenile Justice board constituted under the Act do not meet each and every day as a regular sitting of the Court and in the circumstances, the learned Sessions Judge, Baghpat should have at least examined the matter and if he was of an opinion that the applicants were juvenile then an appropriate order should have been passed, which the Court had failed to do so. In the case of Bhola Bhagat v. State of Bihar, 1997 (35), All Cri C 835 : (AIR 1998 SC 236 : 1998 Cri LJ 390), the apex Court has held that whenever a plea is raised by an accused that he was child and the Court entertains any doubt about the age, it has to hold an inquiry itself for determination of age or cause an inquiry to be held and seek a report. It becomes obligatory for the Court, in case it entertains any doubt about the age as claimed by the accused, it was necessary for the Court to hold an inquiry itself. This legislation is a beneficial legislation and socially oriented

Click Here to Read the rest of this document