JUDGMENT V.N. Mehrotra, J. - This revision has been filed against the judgment dated 2.4.1990 by Sri Pitamber Singh, third Additional Sessions Judge, Hamirpur, dismissing the appeal filed by the present revisionists against their conviction under Section 377 Indian Penal Code and sentence of three years' R.I. and fine of Rs. 500/- imposed by Sri M.C. Gupta, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hamirpur by the order dated 13.1.1989. 2. According to the prosecution allegations the accused persons. who are the present revisionists had committed offence punishable under Section 377 Indian Penal Code on 27.3.1986. The learned Magistrate believed the prosecution evidence produced before him and convicted and sentenced the accused persons. 3. The appeal filed by the accused persons was dismissed and their conviction and sentence was maintained. 4. In this revision it has been contended on behalf of the revisionists that they were juveniles at the time of alleged commission of offence on 27.3.1986 as their age at that time was below 16 years, hence the learned Magistrate could not have sentenced them to undergo imprisonment but should have referred their case to the Juvenile Court as provided under Section 26 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 5. In support of this contention the revisionists applicants filed affidavit of Matroo Lal, who is the father of the applicant, Dhani Ram and also placed reliance on the statement of the applicants recorded under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code, before the learned Magistrate. They have also filed the photostat copy of the School leaving certificate relating to Sri Ganesh Kumar, son of Banwari Lal, according to which the date of birth of applicant Ganesh Kumar was 2.12.1972. 6. On behalf of the opposite party, the State of U.P. the contention of the applicants that they were juvenile on the date of occurrence has been denied. It was thereupon, directed by this Court that the applicants be medically examined by the Chief Medical officer, Hamirpur, and report about their age he called these reports are dated 18.12.1990 and according to the same the age of both the applicants was about 19 years at the time of their medical examination. 7. It was thereupon, directed by this Court that the applicants be medically examined by the Chief Medical officer, Hamirpur, and report about their age he called these reports are dated 18.12.1990 and according to the same the age of both the applicants was about 19 years at the time of their medical examination. 7. The learned Counsel for the applicants has not challenged the conviction of the applicants under Section 377 Indian Penal Code but according to him the applicants could not have been sentenced to imprisonment by the Magistrate concerned but he should have complied with the provisions of Section 26 of the Act as the applicants were Juvenile at the time of occurrence and the case was pending in his court when the Act came into force. 8. I have per-sued the record of the case and have also examined the judgment by the trial court as well as by the appellate Court. There is no ground for interfering with the conviction of the applicants as recorded by the trial Court and confirmed by the appellate Court, under Section 377 Indian Penal Code Reference may, however, be made to the provision of Section 26 of the Act. According to this provision all proceedings in respect of a Juvenile pending in any Court in any area on the date on which this Act comes into force in that area, shall he continued in that court as if this Act had not been passed and if the court finds that the juvenile has committed an offence, it shall record such finding and instead of passing any sentence in respect of the juvenile, forward the juvenile to the Juvenile Court which shall pass orders in respect of that juvenile in accordance with the provisions of this Act as if it had been satisfied on inquiry under this Act that the juvenile has committed the offence. 9. It is not disputed that the trial of the applicants was pending before. the Magistrate concerned when the Act came into force. The applicants have, as mentioned earlier, produced material to indicate that they were juveniles when the offence was allegedly committed. According to the applicants, in their statements under Section 313 Cr. P.C. also they had given their age to show that they were juveniles at the time of occurrence. the Magistrate concerned when the Act came into force. The applicants have, as mentioned earlier, produced material to indicate that they were juveniles when the offence was allegedly committed. According to the applicants, in their statements under Section 313 Cr. P.C. also they had given their age to show that they were juveniles at the time of occurrence. From the medical evidence referred to above also it may appear that the applicants were juveniles at the time of the occurrence. Considering this fact it will he just and proper in this case to direct the trial Court to forward the applicants to the Juvenile Court, for proceeding against them in accordance with the provisions of this Act. Under Section 8 of the Act the Magistrate, who is not empowered to exercise powers of a Juvenile Court, is to refer the Juveniles to the Juvenile Court for further proceedings when he is of the opinion that the person brought before him is a juvenile. It is provided under Section 32 of the Act that the competent authority is to make an enquiry as to the age of the person, who has been brought before it and record a finding whether the person is a juvenile or not. It is within the jurisdiction of the Juvenile Court to decide the question as to whether the person concerned is a Juvenile or not and thereafter to proceed in accordance with the provisions of the Act. 10. In the present case material has been produced on the basis of which an opinion could be recorded that the applicants appear to be juveniles. 11. The trial court should in these circumstances forward the applicants to the Juvenile court for proceeding in accordance with law on the question of sentence. The Juvenile court shall determine the age of the applicants in accordance with the provisions of Section 32 of the Act and thereafter proceed in the matter in accordance with the provisions of the Act. In case the applicants are held to he juveniles at the time of the commission of the offence, the Juvenile Court is to proceed in accordance with the provisions of Section 21 of the Act. With these observations this revision should he allowed on the question of sentence only. 12. In case the applicants are held to he juveniles at the time of the commission of the offence, the Juvenile Court is to proceed in accordance with the provisions of Section 21 of the Act. With these observations this revision should he allowed on the question of sentence only. 12. In the result, the revision is allowed to the extent that while maintaining the conviction of the appellants for the offence under Section 377 Indian Penal Code the sentence imposed on them is set aside. The trial Magistrate is directed to proceed in the matter as mentioned in the body of this judgment.