S. S. JHA, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner has filed this revision against the order passed by the Sessions Judge, holding that the petitioner is not juvenile. ( 2 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that he moved an application before the Sessions Court that the petitioner on the date of offence was below the age of 16 years, therefore, he cannot be tried before the Sessions Judge, and prayed that his case be sent to Juvenile Court. This application was moved under the provisions of Section 386 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. ( 3 ) THE provision mentioned in the application is totally misconceived, as the provision of Section 386 of the Code of Criminal Procedure relates to the procedure in appeal. ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that once he has submitted the mark-sheet and other documents, the Magistrate trying the case has no jurisdiction but to remit the case to Juvenile Court for enquiry. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Sessions Judge has no power to hold the enquiry to determine the age of the petitioner. This power is only with the Juvenile Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the provision of Section 7 of Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the 'act') and submitted that under this provision the Magistrate is found to refer the case before the Juvenile Court. He further submitted that under the provision of Section 32 of the Act the Juvenile Court has power to determine the age. ( 5 ) LEARNED counsel further submitted that from the entire material on record and the certificates produced by him, the learned Judge had erred in holding that the petitioner is above the age of 18 years. He further submitted that the electoral roll prepared under the provisions of Representations of the People Act has wrongly been relied by learned Sessions Judge in holding that the age of the petitioner was above 18 years on the date of offence. ( 6 ) THE question which needs to be determined in this revision is whether the learned Sessions Judge had jurisdiction to determine the age of the petitioner before referring the case to Juvenile Court. ( 7 ) SECTION 8 of the Act is reproduced below :-"8. ( 6 ) THE question which needs to be determined in this revision is whether the learned Sessions Judge had jurisdiction to determine the age of the petitioner before referring the case to Juvenile Court. ( 7 ) SECTION 8 of the Act is reproduced below :-"8. Procedure to be followed by a Magistrate not empowered under the Act.- (1) When any Magistrate not empowered to exercise the powers of a Board or a Juvenile Court under this Act is of opinion that a person brought before him under any of the provisions of this Act (otherwise than for the purpose of giving evidence) is a juvenile, he shall record such opinion and forward the juvenile and the record of the proceeding to the competent authority having jurisdiction over the proceeding. (2) The competent authority to which the proceeding is forwarded under sub-section (1) shall hold the inquiry as if the juvenile had originally been brought before it. "from bare reading of Section 8, it relates to procedure to be followed by Magistrate not empowered under the Act. By going through the Act, unless Magistrate opines that accused before him is juvenile, then only he (sic) forward the juvenile and therecord of the proceedings to the competent authority. Learned Counsel's contention that power of enquiry is vested under Section 32 of the Act is misconceived. There is a difference between Section 8 and Section 32 of the Act. Section 8 relates to a juvenile produced before a Magistrate not empowered to act under the Act and procedure to be adopted by such Magistrate. Section 32 relates to a procedure when a juvenile is produced before the Juvenile Court. The Juvenile Court enters into the enquiry in respect of age when juvenile is produced in the Court. In the present case, the juvenile was not produced before the Juvenile Court. The petitioner is being tried before the Sessions Judge. When the petitioner moves an application that his case be forwarded to Juvenile Court, the Sessions Court cannot act as a post-office and on receiving application and transfer the case to Juvenile Court. Section 8 specifies that if the Magistrate is of the opinion that the person brought before it is juvenile then he shall send juvenile to the Juvenile Court. The essential ingredient in Section 8 is of forming the opinion by the Sessions Judge. Section 8 specifies that if the Magistrate is of the opinion that the person brought before it is juvenile then he shall send juvenile to the Juvenile Court. The essential ingredient in Section 8 is of forming the opinion by the Sessions Judge. For forming opinion Sessions Judge must record a finding about the person brought before it is a juvenile. In the present case, for forming the opinion enquiry was conducted by learned Sessions Judge and he found that the petitioner is not juvenile. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Sessions Judge had no jurisdiction to hold the enquiry is not correct. Unless the Sessions Judge forms an opinion that the person brought before it is a juvenile then only he can transmit the case along with the papers to the Juvenile Court. The essential ingredient is the opinion of the Sessions Judge. Here, the Sessions Judge after enquiry had formed an opinion that the petitioner is not juvenile. ( 8 ) FROM the provisions of Section 8 of the Act, I hold that Sessions Judge has power to conduct the enquiry to determine whether the person brought before him is juvenile. The case is referred to Juvenile Court only when the Magistrate comes to conclusion that the accused is juvenile. He need not refer the case to Juvenile Court if after enquiry he finds that the accused is not juvenile. I, therefore, hold that the trial Court had jurisdiction to determine the question whether the petitioner is juvenile. ( 9 ) AS regards other question, learned Sessions Judge has recorded a finding that the petitioner is not juvenile. He has relied upon the electoral roll prepared under the Representation of the People Act. ( 10 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that the age recorded in electoral roll is arbitrary. There is no presumption as to the age of person written in the electoral roll. The only presumption, which can be assumed, is that the person, whose name is entered into electoral roll, is above the age of 18 years. The minimum age to exercise the right of franchise is 18 years. Therefore, the name of any person recorded in electoral roll shall be deemed to be 18 years or above. As such, no infirmity was committed by the learned Sessions Judge in coming to conclusion that the petitioner is not juvenile. The minimum age to exercise the right of franchise is 18 years. Therefore, the name of any person recorded in electoral roll shall be deemed to be 18 years or above. As such, no infirmity was committed by the learned Sessions Judge in coming to conclusion that the petitioner is not juvenile. ( 11 ) THE revision has no force and is accordingly dismissed summarily. Record of the trial Court be sent back immediately. Petition dismissed. .