1. These four references have been made by the Sessions Judge, Gulbarga to quash the orders of commitment under S.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 S.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 rel