(-1-) MGN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.585 OF 2008 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.765 of 2002 Terence John D’Souza ..............Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra ...Respondents Mr.A.R.Pitale, for the Applicant. Mrs.M.M.Deshmukh, APP for the State. CORAM: F.I. CORAM: F.I. CORAM: F.I. REBELLO REBELLO REBELLO & K.U.CHANDIWAL, JJ. K.U.CHANDIWAL, JJ. K.U.CHANDIWAL, JJ. DATED: 4th July, 2008 DATED: 4th July, 2008 DATED: 4th July, 2008 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . This is an application under Section 7A of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2000, hereinafter referred to as the Act of 2000. The Appeal has been disposed of. However, considering the express language of Section 7A and the view taken in the unreported judgment of this Court in Criminal Appeal No.750 of 2004 with Criminal Application No.420 of 2008 in Imtiyaz Hussain Mumtiyaz Sheikh vs. State of Maharashtra decided on 2nd May, 2008 the application as filed would be maintainable. . The language of Section 7A would permit any Court meaning thereby a Court which had exercised jurisdiction or before whom proceedings are pending to consider such an application. The Appeal filed (-2-) by the Applicant was heard by this Court as such this would also be the Court to exercise jurisdiction under Section 7A of the Act of 2000. The Applicant herein had earlier raised the issue before the learned Sessions Judge. The incident is of 22nd March, 2001. Applicant claims his date of birth as 9th July, 1985. The judgment of the trial Court is dated 15th June, 2002. Section 7A was introduced by the Amendment Act of 2006. Though the applicant had taken the contention that he was a Juvenile, at the relevant time a person had to be aged 16 years or below to be considered as a juvenile for the benefit to be given under the then laws in force. The Application of the applicant herein on that was rejected as the Court found him to be aged over 16 years at the time of the application. The Appeal preferred before this Court was dismissed on 2nd December, 2006. Before this Court the judgment in Pratap Singh vs. State of Pratap Singh vs. State of Pratap Singh vs. State of Jharkhand, 2005 All M.R. (Cri.) 2258 (S.C.) Jharkhand, 2005 All M.R. (Cri.) 2258 (S.C.) Jharkhand, 2005 All M.R. (Cri.) 2258 (S.C.) was brought to the attention of the learned Bench. The learned Bench proceeded on the footing that if the offender had not completed 16 years on 1st April, 2000 he would not be entitled to the benefit under the Act of 2000 Justice Act. The learned Bench also held that the accused cannot claim the benefit of the amended Juvenile Justice Act. It is not clear whether the learned Bench considered the provisions of Section 7A introduced by the amendment of 2006. (-3-) The Appeal preferred to the Supreme Court was dismissed. 2. The question, therefore, before us is whether considering the earlier rejection of the petitioners claim the applicant is entitled to the benefit under the Act as now in force. In the case of Imityaz Hussain (supra) we have taken the view that an application is maintainable if the applicant was below 18 years on the date of committing the offence. In other words the benefit of the amended provisions would be applicable to an applicant if such applicant was 18 years or less at the time when the offence was committed. This beneficial provisions, a part of the reformatory process can be availed off, as long as the applicant’s case was not considered and disposed off under Section 7A of the Act of 2000. 3. After an application was moved by order dated June 26, 2008 we had directed the prosecution to verify the authenticity of the School Leaving Certificate produced by the applicant wherein his date of birth was shown as 9th January, 1985. The learned P.P. has today placed before us a copy of the letter dated 30th June, 2008 annexing the age certificate based on Ossification test which was done. In terms of the Ossification tests as of 28th June,2008 the age of the applicant would be around (-4-) 23-24 years. The learned Counsel also now produces a letter written by the School to the Police Authorities certifying that the applicant was a bonafide student of their school and that he was studying in the School. This has been issued based 5 on the school records. Considering the School Leaving Certificate wherein the date of birth is shown as 9th January, 1985 and from the Ossification Test it would be clear that on the date of the offence the Applicant was aged less than 18 years. 4. The Applicant is in custody for the last over seven years. Under the Act the maximum order that could have been passed would be for a period of three years. 5. Considering the above we direct that the Applicant be released forthwith, if not required in any other offence. Application disposed of accordingly. (K.U.CHANDIWAL, J.) (K.U.CHANDIWAL, J.) (K.U.CHANDIWAL, J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.)