( 1 ) INVOKING the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') the petitioner has assailed the order dated 14-8-96 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Barasia, Bhopal which has been affirmed by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal in Criminal Revision No. 138/96 whereby the prayer of the petitioner to treat him as a juvenile has been refused. It is also worth mentioning here that the petitioner has also questioned the propriety of the order dated 2-1-97 passed by the IX Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal (the learned trial Judge) wherein he has declined to entertain the prayer of the petitioner for treating him as a juvenile.

( 2 ) THE facts as have been undraped in the petition are that the petitioner has been arrayed as an accused in connection with a crime instituted for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 302/149 and 324/149 of the Indian Penal Code. He was arrested on 29-7-96 by the Investigating Agency and was produced before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Barasia who remanded him to custody. The petitioner filed an application before the learned Magistrate praying therein that he was a juvenile, his date of birth being 14-9-81, and hence he should be sent to Juvenile Court. He produced his 'horoscope' in support of his date of birth and also prayed for conducting the necessary medical test for affirmation of his age. The learned Magistrate rejected the application by order dated 14-8-96 relying upon the mark-sheet of the petitioner as the same reflected his date of birth to be 11-7-80. The aforesaid order by the learned Magistrate was challenged in Criminal Revision No. 138/96 before the learned Sessions Judge, Bhopal which eventually came to be disposed of by learned Second Additional Sessions Judge who affirmed the order by learned Magistrate. Thereafter, the matter was committed to the Court of Session which formed the subject-matter of Sessions Trial No. 393/96 before the learned IX Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal. Before the said Court another attempt was made by the petitioner by filing an application pressing for conducting an enquiry with regard to his age and treat him as a juvenile and pass appropriate orders. The learned Trial Judge by order dated 2-1-97 rejected the prayer of the petitioner by holding that the date of birth as mentioned in the mark-sheet of the petitioner is 11-7-80 and, therefore, by the date of incident i. e. 17-7-96 the petitioner was more than 16 years of age. Being of this view he rejected the prayer of the petitioner.

( 3 ) INITIALLY the petitioner had assailed the order dated 2-1-97 but thereafter by way of amendment, the legality of the earlier orders has also been called in question.

( 4 ) ASSAILING the propriety of orders passed, Mr. Ajay Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the approach of the Courts below is palpably erroneous inasmuch as they have refused to conduct an enquiry with regard to the age of the petitioner, solely on the basis that the mark-sheet of the petitioner reveals his age to be 11-7-80. It is strenuously urged by Mr. Gupta that when the affidavit of the grand-father and the uncle of the petitioner was before the learned Magistrate affirming that at the time of admission in school a wrong date was mentioned just to satisfy the eligibility criteria to get the admission, the learned Magistrate erred in law in refusing to conduct an enquiry and that alone vitiated the order passed by him. In support of his submission he has placed reliance on the decisions rendered in the cases of Guman v. State of M. P. , 1992 Jab LJ 375, Bhola Bhagat v. State of Bihar, (1997) 8 SCC 720 : (1998 Cri LJ 390), Rinkoo Khatri v. State of M. P. , (1997) 2 MPLJ 400, Suresh Agrawal v. State of M. P. , (1997) 2 MPLJ 591, Inder Singh v. State of M. P. , 1990 MPLJ 365.

( 5 ) CONTROVERTING the aforesaid submissions of learned couns