C. A. RAHIM, J. This revision has been preferred against the order dated 9-10-1991 passed by the learned Vth Additional District and Sessions Judge, Allahabad in S. T. No. 387 of 1990. By that order learned Judge refused to accept the prayer of the revisionist that his case be tried separate ly by competent court under the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986. 2. Learned counsel for the revisionist has sumitted that the finding of the learned Additional District Judge with regard to the age of the revi sionist was not based on materials produced before him and, therefore, bad in law. He should have relied upon the birth certificate of the revisionist along with the affidavit filed by his mother and pass orders according to law referring the matter to a competent Juvenile Court for separate trial. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party No. 2 has sub mitted that the finding of the learned Magistrate at the time of granting bail was not based on the basis of the medical evidence. It has also been sub mitted that the counter affidavit on behalf the complainant was also not considered by the learned Magistrate. Therefore, the finding of the learned Magistrate that he was below 16 years of age was rightly rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and fixed it for trial. 4. A case under Section 302, IPC was started against the revisionist and another which ended in charge- sheet. The case was, therefore, committed to the court of sessions. On behalf of the revisionist an application for bail was filed with the plea that the revisionist was a minor. The said plea was accepted by the learned Magistrate on the basis of the birth certificate and an affidavit filed by the mother of the revisionist bail was granted. After commitment another application was filed on behalf of the revisionist drawing the attention of the learned Additional District Judge for sending the case of the revisionist to a competent Juvenile Court for separate trial. The said application was rejected and hence this revision. 5. Learned counsel for the revisionist has referred the case of Jayamala v. Stale of Jammu and Kashmir, reported in 1982 Cr LJ 1777 (SC) wherein it has been held that margin of error in age ascertained by radiological examination is two years either way. The said application was rejected and hence this revision. 5. Learned counsel for the revisionist has referred the case of Jayamala v. Stale of Jammu and Kashmir, reported in 1982 Cr LJ 1777 (SC) wherein it has been held that margin of error in age ascertained by radiological examination is two years either way. A copy of the judgment dated 27-8-1990 passed in connection with Criminal Revision No. 1224 of 1990 has been filed on behalf of the revisionist, on the basis of the decision of Jaymala case it was held that then there was any possibility of variation benefit goes to the accused. In that case, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court (supra) it was held that the accused was a juvenile and order was passed accordingly. 6. As against that learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 has referred a case of Gur. Mukh Singh v. State of M. P. , reported in 1990 U. P. Crl. Ruling 264 wherein it has been held that where there is no Juvenile Court the High Court directed the Chief Judicial Magistrate to enquire into the matter. Referring another decision reported in 1992 U. P. Crl. Ruling 486-Jogesh Kumar Pathnk v. State, the learned counsel has submitted that the learned Sessions Judge can enquire into the age of the accused when a controversy is raised with regard to it. 7. But in this case a different situation arose. The learned Magistrate while granting bail held that the revisionist was a minor. But no inquiry, as required under Section 20 of the Juvenile Justice Act was initiated by him. Procedure has been laid down in Sections 32 and 29 of the Act. In Sec tion 32 of the Act it has been laid down that the evidence in this respect was required to be taken, Section 39 has laid down the procedure but no action was taken in this regard and without making an inquiry the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. The learned Judge has also made a superfluous finding on the basis of the document, i. e. birth certificate and the medical certificate. But did not think it necessary that a full-fledged inquiry under the Act was necessary. The report of the radiological examination was based on fusion or non-fusion of two joints of which X-ray was taken. The learned Judge has also made a superfluous finding on the basis of the document, i. e. birth certificate and the medical certificate. But did not think it necessary that a full-fledged inquiry under the Act was necessary. The report of the radiological examination was based on fusion or non-fusion of two joints of which X-ray was taken. The birth certificate was backed by the affidavit of the mother of the revisionist one affidavit was also filed on behalf of the complainant. So evidence was necessary to see whether the mother of the revisionist gave birth to only child or more than one and also whether it was the revisionist who born on that date as obviously the name of the Baby did not find place in the birth certificate. All these things can only be considered if an inquiry under Sections 32/39 of the Juvenile Justice Act was undertaken by any of the courts below. It is unfortunate that for want of adopting proper pro cedure the trial of this case is pending for more than three years. In para graph 7 of the supplementary affidavit it has been stated that Juvenile Magistrate 1st Allahabad was also empowered to function as Juvenile Judge (Rural Area) Allahabad. No counter affidavit has been filed. According to the Juvenile Justice Act the inquiry should be conducted under Section 8 when the accused was produced before a Magistrate who was not empower ed to exercise powers of the juvenile Court. Under Section 20 of the Act it should to conducted by the Magistrate itself when a Juvenile is produced before a Juvenile Court and it has been proved that the said inquiry shall be held in accordance with the provisions of Section 39 of the aforesaid Act. without making inquiry under the above sections the case was committed to the Court of Sessions and thereafter three years have passed. So to avoid delay and for ends of justice it is necessary that inquiry should be expedited as early as possible. In view of the decision Umesh Kumar Pathak the inquiry can be conducted by the learned Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Allahabad considering the peculiar circumstances of the case. So to avoid delay and for ends of justice it is necessary that inquiry should be expedited as early as possible. In view of the decision Umesh Kumar Pathak the inquiry can be conducted by the learned Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Allahabad considering the peculiar circumstances of the case. So I find that both the courts below have erred in taking decision with regard to the age of the revisionist in the absence of making any inquiry according to the pro visions of Juvenile Justice Act. 8. The revision is, therefore, allowed. The order passed by the learned Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Allahabad dated 9-10-1991 is hereby set aside. He will make an inquiry as to the age of the revisionist allowing both the parties to adduce evidence in this regard. He may also call for Dr. Surendra Verma, Chief Medical Officer, Allahabad and examine him in connection with this case for proper scrutiny of the report dated 24-5-1990 and to pro ceed according to law. Considering the delay already caused in holding the sessions trial the inquiry shall be completed within three months from the date of communication of the order. All interim orders are vacated. Revision allowed. .