ORDER K.K. Verma, J. -- 1. This is a revision from the order dated 18th February, 1988, of the Sessions Judge, Guna in S.T. No. 175/87 by which he held that applicant Guman alias Gulab -- one of the two accused persons - in the case -was not below the age of 16 years at the date of the murder, namely, 15th August, 1987. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned Deputy Government advocate. 3. The impugned order indicates that the applicant-accused had relied on his horoscope and the affidavit of his father and an entry about the age of the applicant made by the Police in the farari panchnama. 4. On the other hand, the prosecution produced a X-ray plate on the basis of which the medical opinion, based on the ossification test, was made by the Radiologist to the effect that the applicant was above 16 below 19. 5. The learned Sessions Judge held the entry in the farari panchnama of no value. He discarded the horoscope on account of its apparent suspicious appearance. He also relied on the estimate of the apparent age of the applicant made by the learned Judge's predecessor on 2.2.88. However, in these circumstances, he fell back upon the ossification test and accepted it and negatived the applicant's case. 6. It is, therefore, clear that the learned Sessions Judge and also the learned counsel for the parties did not adopt the appropriate procedure and did not address themselves about the manner of proving the relevant evidence on the question of age of an alleged juvenile as an inquiry on a matter going to the root of the jurisdiction of the Court so far as the trial of the alleged juvenile was concerned. 7. The correct procedure which has to be followed in such an inquiry has to be this. The accused files an application stating that he was a juvenile at the date of the offence. The Court has to give an opportunity to the prosecution to file a written reply. If a written reply is filed and the point is contested or the prosecutor orally contest the stand of the applicant, the Court has to fix a date for an inquiry into the matter. The Court has to give an opportunity to the prosecution to file a written reply. If a written reply is filed and the point is contested or the prosecutor orally contest the stand of the applicant, the Court has to fix a date for an inquiry into the matter. The Court should make a direction that an order for summoning the witnesses of the parties shall be made on their filing an application giving therein the names and full and complete addresses of the witnesses in question. The Court will consider this application and fix a date for the payment of process fees and/or diet money as per the rules governing the matter or shall order issuance of free-of-cost summonses at the cost of the State, as the case may be. These witnesses have to be summoned for one particular date. The accused has to begin his evidence. The prosecution may then adduce on that very day their evidence on the rebuttal. Then after hearing the arguments, the question of age has to be concluded by giving a specific finding. In this connection, see Narendra Singh alias Pratap s/o Lakharam v. State of M.P. Criminal Revision No. 171 of 1987 (Gwalior Bench), decided on 7.3.1992. 8. Since such a procedure was not followed in the case, the result was that the applicant was deprived of an opportunity to examine his father and also the person who had prepared the horoscope and also the persons who had signed the farari, panchnama. Similarly, the doctor, who had given the X-ray report, that is on the ossification test, having not been examined the accused was deprived of an opportunity to cross- examination. 9. In the result, I set aside the impugned order dated 18.2.1988 and remand the case to the learned Sessions Judge, Guna, to dispose of the applicant's application dated 12.2.1988 after adopting the procedure set out above. 10. The learned counsel for the parties to direct their respective parties to appear before the learned Sessions Judge, Guna, on 7.4.1992.