1 142511 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY vgm CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1425 OF 2011 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1028 OF 2005 Kedar Mohanrao Chavan ...Applicant V/s. The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 611 OF 2005 Amit Ashok Vitkar ...Appellant V/s. The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent Ms. Farheen Qureshi i/by Mr. D.G. Khamkar for the Applicant Mrs. S.D. Shinde, A.P.P., for the State CORAM: A.M. KHANWILKAR AND K.K. TATED, JJ. DATE: DECEMBER 16, 2011 P.C.:- Heard counsel for the parties. 2 142511 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, by consent. The learned A.P.P. waives notice for the respondent. 3. As short question is involved, application, along with appeal, is taken up for final disposal forthwith, by consent. 4. In this application, the applicant seeks direction against the respondent to adopt appropriate inquiry proceedings for adjudicating the fact whether the applicant was juvenile in conflict with law on the date of commission of the offence, and, if that issue is answered in favour of the applicant, to give him benefit under the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. 5. The applicant was arrested in connection with offence punishable under Sections 302 and 364 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code on 20th April, 2003. The applicant has been convicted in connection with the said offence, and is presently undergoing life imprisonment. In view of the amendment of the Act of 2000, referred to above, the applicant has approached this Court by way of the present application for the aforesaid relief. 3 142511 6. Before approaching this Court, the applicant had made representation to the Sessions Court. The Sessions Court caused enquiry to be made, which, however, was founded on the opinion given by the Medical Officer of the concerned hospital. 7. The applicant has relied on the unreported decision of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sachin @ Pappu Deepak Shelar v. The State of Maharashtra, dated October 19, 2011 in Criminal Application No.837 of 2003 in Criminal Appeal No. 766 of 2007. The fact situation of the present case is similar to the one which was considered in the above-noted decision. The Court, following the dictum of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Suo Motu High Court on its own motion v. The Chief Secretary, Government of Maharashtra – 1 2009 All MR (Cri) 685, held that the proper procedure for inquiry, in terms of Rule 12 (3) of the Rules of 2007 framed under the above-noted Act, is to constitute a Board of Doctors to examine the convict so as to determine his age on the date of commission of the offence in a case where the convict is not in a position to produce record referred to in sub-clauses (i) to (iii) of clause (a) of Rule 12 (3) of the said Rules. 4 142511 8. Even in the present case, the opinion sought was of the Medical Officer, and not that of the Board. 9. As a result, this application ought to succeed. The decision of the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, dated 15th April, 2011i is set aside. Instead, the applicant’s enquiry case is restored to the file to its original number, which will have to be decided after obtaining report of the Medical Board, as required under clause (b) of Rule 12 (3) of the Rules. 10. Accordingly, we dispose of this application, with direction to the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, to re-examine the matter afresh, and complete the enquiry for determination of age of the applicant, in conformity with Rule 12 (3) of the said Rules expeditiously. The applicant, through his representative / advocate, is free to appear before the concerned Additional Sessions Judge on 4th January, 2012, on which date, the said Court would pass appropriate directions as may be necessary. K.K. TATED, J. A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.