JUDGMENT This revision is filed against the order dated 1st February, 2002 passed by III ASJ Mhow in ST No. 594/96 rejecting the application of the applicant filed under section 24 of the Juvenile Justice Act (Old Act). Contention of the counsel for the applicant is that on the basis of the school certificate, date of birth of the applicant is 9.9.1982 whereas the date of incident is 9.7.1996. Hence, on the alleged date of the incident, he was 16 years of age and for this purpose he has filed High School Certificate as well as other mark-lists, but the trial Court has rejected the application on the ground that he has filed the application at belated stage. Mr. Girish Desai, Dy. AG appearing for the State 'submits that on the basis of legal position as pronounced in the judgment reported in AIR 1998 SC 236 Bhola Bhagat v. State of Bihar that once the application is filed on behalf of the accused/applicant about his age, the trial Court is bound to enquire into the matter after giving full and effective opportunity to both the parties (accused/applicant and the State). Counsel for the applicant has also placed reliance on catena of judgments by this Court i.e. 1. 1981 (1) MPWN 107 (Lalsingh v. State of M.P.); 2. 1984 JLJ 736 (Khalulullah v. State of M.P.); 3. 1990 Current Cr. Judgments (Vol. 7) 241 (Vinod v. State of M.P.); 4. 1992 241 JLJ 375 (Guman v. State of M.P.); 5. 1997 MPLJ 591 (Suresh Agrawal v. State of M.P.); 6. 1997 MPLJ 400 (Rinkoo Khatri v. State of M.P.). In all these judgments, it has been held that the question of age of the applicant being juvenile is agitated before the trial Court these then trial Court is duty bound to enquire into the matter as per Juvenile Justice Act, because it is a question of jurisdiction of the Court and the law is well settled that the question of jurisdiction can be raised at any stage even at the final stage when the appeal or the matter is pending before the Supreme Court. In view of the aforesaid settled legal position, this revision is allowed and the trial Court is directed to hold effective enquiry after affording full opportunity to both the pm1ies for adducing evidence on the question of age of the applicant. In view of the aforesaid settled legal position, this revision is allowed and the trial Court is directed to hold effective enquiry after affording full opportunity to both the pm1ies for adducing evidence on the question of age of the applicant. It is further directed that the enquiry about age shall be completed as early as possible preferably within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of this order. Counsel for the applicant-accused is directed to produce the certified copy of the order immediately after the receipt of the same. Certified copy of the order be given on usual charges in 3 days,