1 CRA-455.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE  CRIMINAL CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.455 OF 2010 Suyash @ Joy Satishkumar Dixhit .... Applicant Vs. State of Maharashtra .... Respondent Ms P.P. Kakade i/b Shri Subhash Hulyalkar for the Applicant. Shri Y.M. Nakhawa, APP, for the State. CORAM: R.C. CHAVAN, J. DATED: FEBRUARY 17, 2011 P.C: This is a thoroughly misconceived application questioning the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pune rejecting the applicant's application Exhibit-49 for a direction to the prosecution to produce the accused before the Juvenile Justice Board to ascertain his age. The learned Judge has held that he was empowered to come to the conclusion whether the accused was a juvenile or not and therefore rejected the said application. By his order the Judge has not decided the age of the accused, he has refused 2 CRA-455.10 to refer the matter to the Juvenile Justice Board. The learned counsel for the applicant, by referring to the provisions of Sections 7 and 7A of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (for short, the Act ) as also the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court in Mohandass v. State of Rajasthan and another, reported in 1996 Cri.L.J. page 1412 and that of the Allahabad High Court in Makrand Rana v. State of Uttar Pradesh, reported in 1996 Cri.L.J. Page 4273, contended that inquiry as to whether the accused is a juvenile or not ought to be conducted not by the trial Court but by the competent authority which, in the view of the learned counsel, is the Juvenile Justice Board. This is thoroughly misconceived. Section 7 of the Act itself recites that when any Magistrate not empowered to exercise the powers of a Board under the Act is of the opinion that the person brought before him is a juvenile, the Magistrate has to refer the matter to the Juvenile Justice Board. Thus, the opinion as to whether the person is a juvenile or not has to be formed by a Magistrate. Again, Section 7A of the Act provides that whenever a claim of juvenility is raised before any Court or the Court is of the opinion that the accused was a 3 CRA-455.10 juvenile on the date of commission of the offence, the Court has to make an inquiry, take such evidence so as to determine the age of the person caught so as to record a finding whether the person is a juvenile or not. Asking the Sessions Judge to refer the matter to the Juvenile Justice Board was thoroughly unwarranted and if there are any contrary observations in the judgments of the Rajasthan and the Allahabad High Courts, with respect, they need not have been followed. In view of this, the application being thoroughly misconceived, is rejected. Needless to mention that the learned Judge would undoubtedly conduct an inquiry, as warranted under Section 7A of the Act, since a question about the juvenility of the person has been raised before him and decide the said question. (R.C. CHAVAN, J.)