JUDGMENT 1. - Heard. The petitioner is facing trial for the offences under sections 302/323 & 324 IPC alongwith two others in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, No. 1, Jaipur City, Jaipur. The charge was framed against him on 20.1.1995. Thereafter three prosecution witnesses were examined by the trial Court. On 3.8.95 an application was filed on behalf of the petitioner alongwith the school certificate wherein date of birth of the petitioner was mentioned as 10.5.78. It was alleged on behalf of the petitioner that on the date of the alleged incident, i.e. on 5.3.91 he was below 16 years of age and as such was a juvenile within the meaning of Section 2(e) of the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act') and, therefore, he could not be tried jointly alongwith the other co-accused persons and should be sent to the Children Court for trial in accordance with law. The learned Additional Sessions Judge observed that in the memo of arrest of the petitioner his age was mentioned as 21 years, that in the Radiological Examination Report dated 17.2.95 of the Medical Jurist, S.M.S. Hospital, Jaipur has also opined that the petitioner was above 18 years and below 20 years and that the said Radiological Examination was conducted at the direction of the High Court while deciding petitioner's bail petition. He further observed that the petitioner at the time of framing of charge and recording of statements of PW 1 to PW 3 did not raise such a plea that he was a delinquent Juvenile. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, therefore, held that the petitioner had waived his right to claim himself as a delinquent juvenile and accordingly by his impugned order dated 9.8.95 dismissed petitioners application. Hence this petition. 2. At the very out set it may be observed that neither there can not be any estoppel against a statute nor waiver of a right of claim which has been conferred on person by a specific provision of law. 3. In Gopinath Ghosh v. State of West Bengal ( AIR 1984 SC 237 ) a minor was tried alongwith others for the offence of committing murder and was convicted after trial. His conviction was maintained by the Calcutta High Court. In appeal by a Special Leave a plea was raised for the first time before the Apex Court that he was a minor. His conviction was maintained by the Calcutta High Court. In appeal by a Special Leave a plea was raised for the first time before the Apex Court that he was a minor. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court held that in view of the underlying intendment and beneficial provisions of the West Bengal Children Act, 1959 read with Clause (f) of Article 39 of the Constitution, it would be proper not to allow a technical objection that the contention that the accused was a minor was being raised in the Apex Court for the first time, because such an objection would result in thwarting the benefit of the provisions of the said Children Act to the minor if he was otherwise entitled to it. Their Lordships, therefore, set-aside the conviction and sentence of the accused and remitted the case to the trial court for conducting an enquiry for determination of his age. In view of this authoritative pronouncement, the learned Additional Sessions Judge was not correct in holding that the petitioner has waived his right to claim himself as a delinquent juvenile and to be tried separately under the provisions of the Act. 4. Section- 32 of the Act proclaims that where it appears to a competent authority that a person brought before it under the provisions of the Act is a juvenile, the competent authority shall make due enquiry as to age of that person and for that purpose shall take such evidence as necessary and shall record a finding whether the person is a juvenile or not, stating his age as nearly as may be. Section 7(3) of the Act also confers the powers of `Juvenile Court' to the High Court and the Court of Sessions, when the proceedings comes before them in appeal, revision or otherwise, which includes the trial also. 5. Section- 24 of the Act specifically lays down that notwithstanding anything contained in Section 223 of Cr.PC, or in any other law for the time being in force, no juvenile shall be charged with or tried for, any offence together with a person, who is not a juvenile. It further lays down that if a juvenile is accused of an offence and has been charged and tried together with any person, the court taking cognizance of that offence shall direct separate trial of the juvenile and the other person. 6. It further lays down that if a juvenile is accused of an offence and has been charged and tried together with any person, the court taking cognizance of that offence shall direct separate trial of the juvenile and the other person. 6. Admittedly in the case on hand, the learned Sessions Judge has not conducted any enquiry under section 32 read with Section 7(3) of the Act for determination of the age of the petitioner and has not given his finding, after recording of the evidence of the parties concerned. The Radiological Examination Report dated 17.2.95 alleged to have been submitted at the direction of the High Court while deciding his hail application cannot take place and be substituted as an enquiry as envisaged under the provisions of Section 32 of the Act. Of course such a report can also taken in to consideration by the competent authority during such an enquiry. 7. From the school certificate wherein the petitioners date of birth has been mentioned as 10.5.78 submitted by the petitioner before the trial court prima facie it appeared that he was below 16 years on the date of alleged incident. In such circumstances, it was the bounden duty of the learned Sessions Judge, to have conducted such an enquiry, but he has failed to do so ignoring the mandatory provisions of the Act. Hence for the reasons mentioned above the impugned order is tantamount to abuse of process of the court and to secure the ends of justice, the same can not be sustained. 8. In the result, this petition is allowed, the impugned order dated 9.8.95 is set aside and the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Jaipur City, is hereby directed to conduct an enquiry under section 32 read with 7(3) of the Act for determination of the age of the petitioner and to pass necessary orders in accordance with law. A copy of this order be sent to the learned trial Court for compliance.Petition allowed. *******