ORDER K.K. Verma, J. 1. This is a revision from the order dated 9-12-1987 of the First Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior, in S.T. No. 113/87 rejecting the applicant's application for summoning some witnesses on the point of the age of the applicant. 2. I have heard the applicant's learned counsel and the learned Additional Government Advocate. 3. This case furnishes another example of the lackadaisical manner of the handling of the subject by all concerned in the trial Court. 4. On 15-9-1987,the applicant made an application that he was below 16 years of age on 10-4-1987, the date of the commission of the offences. Without calling upon the State to file a written reply to the application, the learned trial Judge fixed the case for holding an inquiry on the aforementioned application. 5. On 6-10-1987, the applicant made an application for summoning Shri Ram Sewak Sharma, the head master of the Government Middle School, Baraiya, with the school record containing the particulars about the applicant's date of birth. The Judge ordered that a certificate be called for after the furnishing of the full particulars by the defence. 6. On 23-11-1987, on the applicant's request, the Judge ordered that the applicant to appear for the ossification test before the Superintendent, J. A. Hospital, Gwalior. 7. On 9-12-1987, the ossification test report was received, which was against the applicant. Thereupon, the defence counsel made a prayer for summoning the aforementioned head master and two (unnamed) witnesses for being examined on the subject of the applicant's age. The Judge rejected the application saying that he found no reason to summon these witnesses. After saying this, the Judge went on to observe as follows : -- "Since ossification test report is received and in view of medical opinion and failure of defence to produce birth certificate I am not inclined to accept defence contention that accused Narendra is below 16 years. This application is, therefore, disallowed." Thus, the learned trial Judge virtually dismissed the impunged application itself. As such, there was no substance in the contention of the applicant's counsel, hence, the matter was decided without hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the applicant. 8. The correct procedure in dealing with the application of an accused, who claims that his case is triable in a juvenile Court, is this. As such, there was no substance in the contention of the applicant's counsel, hence, the matter was decided without hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the applicant. 8. The correct procedure in dealing with the application of an accused, who claims that his case is triable in a juvenile Court, is this. A written direction be given to the State to file a written reply to the application. If the State contests the position taken by the accused, the Court should fix a date for receiving the evidence of the applicant and the State on the issue of the age of the applicant on the date of the commission of the offence. There should be a direction that witnesses for the accused will be summoned on payment of process-fees and diet money within a specified period of time. That the orders regarding summoning of the witnesses for the accused shall be passed on a written application giving the names and full and complete addresses of the witnesses in question. On such an application, the Court should fix a date for the payment of process-fees and diet money and then issue summonses for witnesses of the accused and at the same time make an order that the prosecution should produce their witnesses in rebuttal. Then a date be fixed for the inquiry, that is, for receiving the evidence and for hearing arguments and then the application be disposed of on merits. 9. Applying the aforementioned test to the present case it appears that all concerned have gone a way. The Judge was certainly not justified in refusing the prayer for summoning of the witnesses. He could have insisted upon the particulars about the witnesses, payment of process-fees and diet money. What is more, he should not have rejected the main application itself while disallowing the application for summoning of the witnesses. 10. In the result, the impugned order dated 17-12-1987, it set aside. The parties are directed through their counsel to appear before the trial Court on 17-3-1992 with an application containing the names and addresses of all witnesses along with the complete description of record, if any required from them. The application should be accompanied by process-fees, if any, and the applicant should tender the diet money and travelling expenses of the witnesses along with the application. The application should be accompanied by process-fees, if any, and the applicant should tender the diet money and travelling expenses of the witnesses along with the application. The Judge shall allow such application and issue summonses to those witnesses. He shall also give a direction to the State to produce or get examined the witnesses in rebuttal. A date be fixed and on that date the evidence be received and arguments be heard. Care be taken to see that the case is not allowed to linger on and the tendency of either side to prolong litigation be curbed. It is hoped that the matter is disposed of by 10-4-1992.