JUDGMENT 1. - Heard. 2. This is a revision against the order of learned Sessions Judge Merta dated 31.1.1997 by which he held that the petitioner was not a juvenile on the date of occurrence and consequently was to be tried by the regular Court. 3. The allegations against the petitioner and his father are that Mool Chand was murdered by them. It was the petitioner who caught hold of the legs of deceased and Ganpat Das stabbed the deceased with a katar. The deceased died in JLN Hospital, Ajmer on 10.8.1996. At the time of arrest of Ashok Kumar, his age was shown as 18 years by the police and challan against him and the co-accused was presented before the Judicial Magistrate who committed the case to the learned Sessions Judge. Learned Sessions Judge framed charges against the petitioner for offences under sections 302/34 & 341 IPC. 4. On 13.1.1997, an application was preferred before the learned Sessions Judge that the petitioner was a juvenile and an inquiry be made. Learned Sessions Judge summoned the record of the school which contains admission form, transfer certificate and admission register. It was also ordered that the petitioner may be examined by a medical board. The parties did not lead evidence and after hearing the parties and after having seen the school record, the learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the petitioner was above 16 years of age at the time of occurrence. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the inquiry was not held by the learned Sessions Judge as is contemplated under section 32 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986. He has submitted that though the medical board was of the opinion that the approximate age of the petitioner was about 16 years on 25.1.1997 yet the learned Sessions judge did not send the case to the Court established under the Juvenile Justice Act. 6. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the petition and has submitted that when the parties themselves did not want to adduce evidence as is clear from the order of learned Sessions judge, learned Sessions Judge was not required to record any evidence. He has, therefore, submitted that no interference is required in the order of the learned Sessions Judge. 7. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions raised at the bar. He has, therefore, submitted that no interference is required in the order of the learned Sessions Judge. 7. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions raised at the bar. Under Section 7(3) of the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, the learned Sessions Judge has powers to make an inquiry. When an inquiry is mandatory which may include the production of documents as well as medical certificates, it was incumbent on the learned Sessions Judge to hold an inquiry as contemplated under section 32 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 which provides that 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. The Act is beneficial to the juveniles and when there is an application, it was incumbent on the learned Sessions Judge to hold an inquiry irrespective of the fact the parties wanted to lead evidence or not, particularly so when there were two sets of evidence, the one school record and the other medical opinion which were different than one another. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the school record shows that the date of birth of the petitioner is 4.7.1978 which was also mentioned in the admission form which bears the signatures of the father of the petitioner. He has submitted that since the petitioner belongs to a village and his father is almost an illeterate person, the date of birth is generally mentioned by the teachers in the schools and had the father of the accused petitioner an occasion to give statement, he would have explained how the date of birth of the petitioner was entered in the form. He has further submitted that since it is alleged that the admission form contains the signatures of the father of the petitioner, it cannot be read in evidence unless it is proved according to the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act. 9. In Afzal Ahmad v. State of Rajasthan, 1996 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 263 , it was held that an inquiry is mandatory and any medical certificate made available can also be considered. 9. In Afzal Ahmad v. State of Rajasthan, 1996 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 263 , it was held that an inquiry is mandatory and any medical certificate made available can also be considered. In an unreported case of this Court in Sarwan Kumar v. State of Rajasthan, S.B. Cr. Appeal No. 158/95, decided on 24.2.1997 , it was observed that proper and legal inquiry is to be held for determination of age of an accused in order to come to the conclusion whether the trial could be held against him in the Sessions Court or he deserves to be forwarded to juvenile Court. The inquiry is to be held according to Section 39 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 which provides that it is to be done as per the procedure laid down in the Code of Criminal Procedure for trials in summons cases. 10. Needless to say that the learned Sessions Judge did not follow the same procedure as is envisaged under section 39 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986. 11. The order of the learned Sessions Judge is, therefore, deserves to be set aside. 12. Consequently, the revision is allowed. The order of learned Sessions Judge, Merta is set aside and he is directed to hold an inquiry under section 32 r/w Section 7(3) of the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 following the procedure under section 39 of this Act to determine the age of the petitioner on the date of alleged offence.Revision allowed. *******