Judgment J.P.Singh, J. 1. This revision petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 22-9-1997 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Gopalganj in Sessions Trial No. 42 of 1997, by which the, petitioners petition for treating as juvenile an the date of occurrence has been rejected. 2. The short fact leading to the case is that the informant lodged an FIR stating therein that on 22-3-1994, the informant Suresh Bhagat, his father and his uncle Gurdeh Bhagat were sitting at Bathan, in the meantime, Ram Naresh San was passing through the house of the informant and gat-dashed with the brother of the informant. Shwami Nath Bhagati as a result, he fell dawn and started crying. The accused persons threatened the informants parents and in the night at 8 Oclack, the accused persons all variously armed came to the house of the informant. It has been alleged that the accused Han Kirtan Sah assaulted the uncle of the informant on his head and accused Dudh Nath Bhagat assaulted the informants father. Thereafter all the accused-persons assaulted them with lathi and when the informant raised alarm the witnesses Mukh Lal Bhagat and Radha Bhagat came at the place of occurrence. It has been stated that they were also assaulted by the accused and thereafter, the accused-persons fled away. The Police, after completion of the investigation, submitted charge-sheet against all the accusedpersons and cognizance was taken by the Chief Judicial Magistrate and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions far trial. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that under Sec. 32 of the Juvenile Justice Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) there is provision that the Court below shall hold due inquiry to assertion the age of the accused on the date of commission of offence and the Court below has to examine witness as may be necessary and also to record a finding whether the accused was juvenile or not an the date of occurrence. 4. Perused the order impugned, it appears that the question of age far the first tithe was raised before the Sessions Judge when the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. The Court below requested the Civil Surgeon to constitute a Medical Board and examine the petitioner and decide his approximate age. The Civil Surgeon in pursuance of the request of the Court vide, its letter no. The Court below requested the Civil Surgeon to constitute a Medical Board and examine the petitioner and decide his approximate age. The Civil Surgeon in pursuance of the request of the Court vide, its letter no. 1168 dated 11-7-1997 intimated the Court about the age of the petitioner as per the examination of the Medical Board and the petitioner was found to be more than 20 years of age of on 8-7 -1997. Apart from this, the school leaving certificate and Voters List were also produced. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has assailed the credibility of the Voters List saying that the Voters list contains wrong information and it has been pointed out by tile Counsel for the petitioner that the age of the mother of the petitioner has been shown 24 years whereas the age of the petitioner is 20 years which seems to be most illogical. The main point which has been raised by the petitioner is that as per the provision. Sec. 32 of the Act contemplates that authority shall make due enquiry and for that purpose, he shall take such evidence as may be necessary. In this case for the purpose of inquiry the Court should have given opportunity to the accused to cross-examine the doctor who had certified his age. But, this was not done by the Court below and the impugned order was passed. 5. In view of above, it would be expedient in the interest of natural justice that the order passed by the Court below is set aside and remanded back to the Court below for holding inquiry afresh in accordance with the provision of Sec. 32 of the Act and then pass a fresh order in accordance with law. Accordingly, this petition is allowed.