IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.708 of 2008 KULDEEP MAHTO vs State & anr. ----------- 3 26/09/2008. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner submits that his minor son, namely, Sanjai Kumar alias Sanjai Mahto has been made accused in Hajipur town p s case no. 411 of 1997, lodged for offences under sections 302, 147,148,307 I.P.C. One Dahori Devi, the informant of the aforesaid case alleged that this petitioner along with six other family members including her son and other female members came armed with lathi, rod etc. and assaulted her son, who succumbed to the injuries on 5.9.1998. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vaishali while refusing bail to petitioner’s son estimated his age to be about eight years and as such he sent him to remand home treating him to be a juvenile. Case of other accused were separated soon thereafter and sent for trial being Sessions Trial No. 226 of 1999, in which accused persons including petitioner’s father were convicted for offences under sections 302/149 I.P.C. vide judgment dated 11.1.2000. It appears that case of the petitioner’s son remained pending in the court of the ACJM, Vaishali at Hajipur. Vide order dated 25.6.2008, the Juvenile Board, the court of the ACJM, Vaishali started an enquiry for determination of age of Sanjai Kumar and accordingly four witnesses were examined. It cannot be lost sight that the then Chief Judicial Magistrate , Vaishali while refusing bail on 5.9.1998 had assessed age of petitioner’s son about 8 years, meaning thereby he was seven years old on 29.11.1997, the date of occurrence. Section 7A and Section 49 of Juvenile Justice Act relates to making - 2 - an enquiry for determination of age of a person claiming to be a juvenile. In some cases it would be difficult to determine on mere appearance whether a person is a juvenile or not, as such, the Act has provided for an enquiry for determination or ascertainment of age. But where on mere appearance of a child, it appears that he is less than 10 to 12 years of age, any lengthy enquiry would be meaningless and against very object of giving due care, protection and respite to a child. In the instant case, the then Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vaishali has assessed the age of petitioner’s son on 5.9.1998 as eight years. As such, by necessary corollary he would be about seven years on 29.11.1997. In such cases, there would be no need for any lengthy enquiry. The enquiry ought to have been restricted to calling for appearance of the child as the age assessed by CJM,Vaishali on 5.9.1998 as eight years was never challenged. It is not the case of State that his age was near about 15 to 16 years on the date of occurrence, which if so may have necessitated detailed enquiry. Furthermore the case of petitioner’s son was separated treating him to be a juvenile. The Juvenile Board or the court functioning as in-charge court would dispose of the enquiry(trial) of the case, arising out of Hajipur PS case no. 411 of 1997 within four months of the receipt/production of a copy of this order, treating the petitioner’s son to be juvenile. With aforesaid observations, the writ petition is allowed to the extent mentioned above. Let this order be faxed to the court concerned at the cost of the petitioner. Shashi. (S.P.Singh,J).