JUDGMENT 1. - Heard. 2. Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to accept the notice on behalf of State. He accepts it. 3. By the impugned order the learned Principal Magistrate of the Juvenile Justice Court, Ajmer without holding any inquiry under section 20 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 (here-in-after referred to "the Act") held that the petitioner was in between the age of 17 to 18 years and returned the application of the uncle of the petitioner to be presented before the competent Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that challan was presented before the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Deedwana and since the offence is under section 376, IPC and Section 3 of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act the case was committed to the learned Special Judge (SC/ST cases), Merta City before whom the case is pending. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to the judgment of this Court in Abhinandan v. State of Raj., 1989 WLN (UC) page 31 in which it was held that when the accused was 15 to 17 years old, when charge-sheet was submitted, the regular Court had no jurisdiction to take cognizance as the case of the accused-petitioner was covered for being dealt under the provision of Rajasthan Children Act. In the case in hand the learned Magistrate without holding any inquiry u /s. 20 of the Act held that the petitioner's case was not covered under the Act and hence returned the application. 4. Now when the case is pending before the learned Special Judge (SC /ST Cases) he is also a competent authority under sub-sec. (3) of Section 7 of the said Act. He is a competent authority to hold inquiry. My attention has been drawn to the papers which show that the date of birth of the petitioner is 10.5.1983 as per the school record. According to it, the petitioner might be a juvenile but it is to be ascertained after holding inquiry as per procedure laid down under section 39 of the Act. Learned Public Prosecutor agrees. The question is what is to be down now? In my opinion it will be proper if the learned Special Judge (SC /ST Cases), Merta is directed to hold inquiry about the age of the child as per the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986. Learned Public Prosecutor agrees. The question is what is to be down now? In my opinion it will be proper if the learned Special Judge (SC /ST Cases), Merta is directed to hold inquiry about the age of the child as per the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986. The petition is consequently disposed of with the direction to the learned Special Judge (SC /ST Cases), Merta to hold inquiry under section 20 of the Act as per the procedure laid down in the Section 39 of the Act. The impugned order of the learned Principal Magistrate of Juvenile Justice Court, Ajmer is set aside. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to the judgment of this Court in Pushpendra Singh v. State of Raj., RLW 1988 (1) page 104 in which it was held that when the child is not released on bail by the Children's Court then instead of committing him to prison he be sent to observation home during the pendency of the inquiry. Learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to submit an application for bail before the learned Special Judge (SC/ST Cases), Merta who will pass necessary order keeping in view Pushpendra Singh's Case (supra).The petition stands disposed of accordingly.Revision allowed. *******