DEEPAK MISHRA, J. ( 1 ) INVOKING the revisional jurisdiction under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the petitioner has assailed the sustainability of the order dated 5-6-1997 passed in Session Trail No. 35/ 1995 by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Rewa, wherein the said Court has rejected the prayer of the petitioner to treat him as a juvenile under the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). ( 2 ) THE facts as have been unfolded are that the petitioner has been arraigned as an accused in Sessions Trial No. 35/1995 pending in the Court of Second Additional Sessions Judge, Rewa on the allegation that he was involved in the commission of the alleged offence which had occurred on 24-6-1993. During the pendency of the trial the petitioner filed an application on 7-4-1997 stating that his date of birth is 24-8-1977 and, therefore, he was a juvenile on the date of occurrence and hence, he should be appropriately dealt with. In support of the aforesaid plea the petitioner produced a photocopy of the report from the record of Kotwari Register, which reflects his date of birth to be 24-8-1977. Transfer certificate of Saraswati Shishu Bal Mandir where the accused had prosecuted his studies upto the class Nth was also filed to establish that his date of birth is 24-8-1977. The affidavits of the parents were also filed in support of his date of birth. The learned trial Judge took note of the belated filing of the application and mention of age to be 19 years in the application for bail preferred before this Court and entry in the school certificate and came to hold that the petitioner was not a juvenile at the time the incident took place. Being of this view he rejected the application of the petitioner. ( 3 ) ASSAILING the aforesaid order, it is submitted by Mr. S. L. Kochar learned Counsel for the petitioner that the learned trial Judge has committed gross illegality by opining that the petition should have been filed at an earlier point of time then an ossification test could have been done to determine the age of the petitioner. ( 3 ) ASSAILING the aforesaid order, it is submitted by Mr. S. L. Kochar learned Counsel for the petitioner that the learned trial Judge has committed gross illegality by opining that the petition should have been filed at an earlier point of time then an ossification test could have been done to determine the age of the petitioner. He has also submitted that the learned trial Judge has failed to appreciate that under compelling circumstances the petitioners age was mentioned in the school leaving certificate as it was mandatory to attain the age of 11 years to appear in primary school certificate examination and, therefore, the date of birth of applicant was recorded as 24-12-1974. It is also canvassed by Mr. Kochar that the Court below should have considered the entry in the Kotwari Register as that is maintained by the competent authority, Mr. Kochar learned Counsel for the petitioner in support of his submission has placed reliance on the decision rendered in the case of Bhola Bhagat v. state of Bihar. Resisting the aforesaid submissions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner, it is contended by Mr. B. P. Athya learned Government Advocate that learned trial Judge is justified in rejecting the application of the petitioner as it was quite belated. It is his further submission that once the college leaving certificate and school leaving certificate were produced to show the date of birth of the accused and the same have been relied upon by the learned trial Judge the order of rejection can not be found fault with. ( 4 ) TO appreciate the rival submissions raised at the Bar, I have carefully perused the order passed by the learned trial Judge and on a close Scrutiny of the impugned order it is noticed that the learned trial Judge has drawn adverse inference because of the belated approach by the accused-petitioner. He has also taken note of the school leaving certificate and college leaving certificate. But he has not discussed with, regard to the evidential value of the documents filed by the petitioner. True it is, the petition was filed at a belated stage but keeping in view the beneficial provisions of the Act the Court should have conducted an enquiry. He has also taken note of the school leaving certificate and college leaving certificate. But he has not discussed with, regard to the evidential value of the documents filed by the petitioner. True it is, the petition was filed at a belated stage but keeping in view the beneficial provisions of the Act the Court should have conducted an enquiry. In this context, I may Trefer to the decision rendered in the case Bhola Bhagat (supra) wherein the Apex Court registered its view as under: Before parting with this judgment, we would like to re-emphasise that when a plea is raised on behalf of an accused that he was a Tchild within the meaning of the definition of the expression under the Act, it becomes obligatory for the Court, in case it entertains any doubt the age as claimed by the accused, to hold an inquiry it self for determination of question of age of the accused or cause an inquiry to be held and seek a report regarding the same, if necessary, by asking the parties to lead evidence in that regard. Keeping in view the beneficial nature of the socially oriented legislation, it is an obligation of the Court where such a plea is raised to examine that plea with care and it cannot fold its hands and without returning a positive finding regarding that plea, deny the benefit of the provisions to an accused. The Court must hold an enquiry and return a finding regarding the age, one way or the other. We expect the High Courts and subordinate Courts to deal with such cases with more sensitivity, as otherwise the object of the Acts would be frustrated and the effort of the Legislature to reform the delinquent child and reclaim him as a useful members of the society would be frustrated. T ( 5 ) TESTING on the touchstone of the aforesaid principles. I am of the considered view that the learned trial Judge should have held an enquiry with regard to the plea of juvenile and if necessary should have recorded the evidence if the parties intended to adduce the evidence if the parties intended to adduce the evidence. As it appears that the learned trial Judge has not conducted an enquiry except opining with regard to the belated approach and the school and college leaving certificates. As it appears that the learned trial Judge has not conducted an enquiry except opining with regard to the belated approach and the school and college leaving certificates. It is to be noted that when two sets of documents were filed, it would have been appropriate on the part of the trial Judge to hold an enquiry to return a positive finding regarding the plea of age. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the order passed by the learned trial Judge is unsustainable and the same is accordingly set aside. The learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Rewa, would do well to conduct an enquiry within a period of 8 weeks from today and determine the age of the petitioner. It needs no special emphasis to state that the learned trial Judge shall keep in view the legal position with regard to the presumption of correctness in regard to the date of birth of the petitioner if any of the entries so commend. ( 6 ) ACCORDINGLY, the revision petition is allowed. Lower Court records be sent back forthwith. Revision allowed. Matter remanded. .