V. K. AGRAWAL, J, J. ( 1 ) THIS petition of revision has been filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr. P. C. , read with Section 482 of Cr. P. C. against the order dated 19-7-1996 of Sessions Judge, Bhopal in Criminal Appeal No. 110/96, whereby the prayer of the petitioner that he should be held to be below 16 years of age and thus a Juvenile, as defined in the Juvenile Justice Act 1986; has been rejected. ( 2 ) THE facts leading to the present revision in brief are that police Jahangirabad arrested the accused/petitioner on 8-5-1996, in connection with an offence u/s 302 IPC, registered as Crime No. 377/96. It appears that bail application by the petitioner was filed on 14-5-1996 before Principal Magistrate Juvenile Court, Bhopal who ordered that hearing of the petition be deferred till medical examination of the petitioner regarding the assessment of age, is completed. Dr. C. S. Jam. Medical Officer, examined the petitioner and submitted a report dated 30-6-1996, which indicated that the age of petitioner is 16-1/2 years at the time of examination. Thereafter the parents of the accused/petitioner filed an affidavit making an averment that the petitioners age is 15 years 6 months and his age at the time of admission in school was recorded on the higher side, in order to secure admission. It has further been averred by the learned counsel of accused/petitioner that the Juvenile Court without conducting necessary enquiry, u/s 32 of the Juvenile Justice Act has recorded a finding that the accused/petitioner was more than 16 years of age. Criminal Appeal No. 110/96, was preferred against the said order before the Sessions Judge. Bhopal, who by judgment dated 19-7-1996, held that there does not appear to be any illegality or irregularity in the order of the trial Court. He accordingly dismissed the appeal. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the present revision has been filed. ( 3 ) IT has mainly been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the report of Dr. C. S. Jam indicates that the petitioner was 16-1/2 years plus or minus 6 months. He accordingly dismissed the appeal. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the present revision has been filed. ( 3 ) IT has mainly been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the report of Dr. C. S. Jam indicates that the petitioner was 16-1/2 years plus or minus 6 months. Therefore, it should have been held that on the date of incident, the petitioner was less than 16 years of age, as the margin in assessment should have been construed in favour of the petitioner Moreover, it has been urged that judicial notice should have been taken that margin in assessment of age by radiological examination is 2 years on either side. In this connection reliance has been placed on the Naunidh v. State of U. P. ( 4 ) IT. has accordingly been contended that the accused/petitioner could not be held to be more than 16 years of age. It has further been urged that u/ss 32 and 39 of Juvenile Justice Act, complete enquiry after giving opportunity for adducing evidence should have been made. It was therefore, contended that the petitioner ought to have been given an opportunity of adducing evidence to prove his contention that he was below the age of 16 years. In this connection reliance has been placed on the case of Asharam v. State of M. P. , as well as on Balbir Singh v. State of Rajasthan. ( 5 ) SECTION 32 of Juvenile Justice Act, reads as below: Where it appears to a competent authority that a person brought before it under any of the provisions of this Act, is a juvenile, the competent authority shall make due inquiry as to the age of that person and for that purpose shall take such evidence as may be necessary and shall record a finding whether the person is a juvenile or not stating his age as nearly as may be, Section 39 of the said Act lays down the procedure of holding inquiries, and it has been provided therein that the procedure of such enquiry shall be followed, as is prescribed for trials of summons cases in the Code of Criminal Procedure. ( 6 ) IT has been urged that the enquiry as envisaged under Sections 32 and 37 of Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 has not been conducted inasmuch as the Juvenile Court has not afforded any opportunity to the petitioner to lead evidence to support his contention that he was below the age of 16 years. In the case of Balbir Singh (supra), it has been laid down by the High Court of Rajasthan that it is obligatory to make an inquiry regarding the age of the accused and that after affording an opportunity to the parties to lead evidence finding regarding the age of the accused has to be recorded on the basis of evidence and material before it. ( 7 ) IN the instant case, it appears that Juvenile Court did not afford any opportunity to the petitioner to lead evidence and the enquiry in the matter was limited to the consideration of documents including the medical certificate and the affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner. Since due opportunity was not afforded to the petitioner to lead evidence; mandatory provisions as contained in Sections 32 and 39 of Juvenile Justice Act. 1986 have not been properly followed. ( 8 ) IT appears that Juvenile Justice Court as well as the appellate Court have not considered the above vital aspect of the matter and have thus fallen into grave error which has resulted in prejudice to the accused/petitioner. ( 9 ) THEREFORE, the revision petition is allowed, and it is directed that the matter shall be sent back to the competent authority i. e. Juvenile Justice Court, which shall hold enquiry regarding the age of accused/petitioner as provided u/ss 32 and 39 of Juvenile Justice Act, and shall afford an opportunity to both the parties to lead evidence. Thereafter it shall record a finding regarding the age of the accused/petitioner as is required u/s 32 of the Juvenile Justice Act. Revision allowed. .