IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.40880 of 2009 ANJANI KUMAR @ ANJANI SINGH, son of Dwarika Singh @ Dwarika Prasad Singh, village Laxmanpur Bathe, PS Parasia, District Arwal – petitioner. Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2 26.11.2009 This application has been filed for quashing the order, dated 30.10.2009 passed in S.T. No. 2/1999 by 3rd Addl. Sessions Judge, Patna by which the court below has rejected the petition filed on behalf of the petitioner claiming that he was juvenile on the date of occurrence i.e. 1/2.12.1997. The petitioner claims that his date of birth is 9.1.1981 and to substantiate that claim he has filed a photo copy of the admit card issued by the Bihar School Examination Board. This plea has been raised at the stage of section 313 of the Cr.P.C. The petitioner along with others have been made accused in a case under section 302 and other sections of the Penal Code for an occurrence which is commonly known as Laxmanpur Bathe in which 58 persons were killed. Shorn of all the details the only question that arises in this case is whether the petitioner is entitled to claim that he was a juvenile and be tried and convicted under the special Act i.e. Juvenile Justice Act and the rules framed thereunder. Juvenile Justice Act 1986 defines a child to be mean a person who has not completed 16 years of age. The 1986 Act was replaced by Juvenile Justice Act, 2000 wherein juvenile or child has been defined to mean a person who has not completed 18 years of age. The Juvenile Justice Act, 2000 came into force with effect from 2 1.4.2000. According to the petitioner his age was 16 years, ten months and 23 days on the date of occurrence. On the basis of the aforesaid fact the court held that the petitioner would not be entitled to the protection of Juvenile Justice Act, 2000 as he came outside the cut off date when the Act came into force i.e. 1.4.2000. There are catenae of judgments which supported this view. The most prominent one being in the case of Pratap Singh vs. State of Jharkhand, (2005) 3 SCC 551. In the mean time the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000 was amended by Juvenile Justice Amendment Act, 2006. It would be relevant to point out and enumerate the amendments that took place in the Act. A new section was added to section 7, that is, 7A which reads as follows : “7-A. Procedure to be followed when claim of juvenility is raised before any court – (1) Whenever a claim of juvenility is raised before any Court or a Court is of the opinion that an accused person was a juvenile on the date of commission of the offence, the Court shall make an inquiry, take such evidence as may be necessary (but not an affidavit) so as to determine the age of such person, and shall record a finding whether the person is a juvenile or a child or not, stating his age as nearly as may be : Provided that a claim of juvenility may be raised before any Court and it shall be recognized at any stage, even after final disposal of the case, and such claim shall be determined in terms of the provisions contained in this Act and the rules made thereunder, even if the juvenile has ceased to be so on or before the date of commencement of this Act. “(2) If the Court finds a person to be a juvenile on the date of commission of the offence under sub-section (1), it shall forward the juvenile to the Board for passing appropriate order, and the sentence, if any, passed by a Court shall be deemed to have no effect.” This section envisages that plea of juvenility if raised before any court and the court is of the opinion that the person was a 3 juvenile on the date of commission of the offence, the court will make an enquiry, take such evidence so as to determine the age of such person and record a finding whether the person is juvenile or not. The proviso further states that the claim of juvenility may be raised before any court and it should be recognized at any stage, even after the disposal of the case and such claim shall be determined in terms of the provisions contained in this Act and the rules made thereunder. Sub- section (2) of section 7A provides that from the date of commission of the offence under sub-section (1), it shall forward to the Juvenile Justice Board for passing appropriate order and sentence, if any and the sentence passed by the court shall be deemed to have no effect. Section 20 of the Principal deals with the special provisions in respect of pending cases. It envisages that all proceedings pending in any Court in any area, shall be continued in that Court as if the Act had not been passed and if the Court finds that the juvenile has committed offence, it shall record such finding and instead of passing the sentence in respect of the juvenile, forward the juvenile to the Board which will pass orders in respect of that juvenile in accordance with the provisions of the Act. It would also be relevant to quote amendment of section 20 which is as under : “20.In section 20 of the Principal Act, the following proviso and explanation shall be inserted, namely: “Provided that the Board may, for any adequate and special reason to be mentioned in the order, review the case and pass appropriate order in the interest of such juvenile. “Explanation – In all pending cases including trial, 4 revision, appeal or any other criminal proceedings in respect of a juvenile in conflict with law, in any court, the determination of juvenility of such juvenile shall be in terms of clause (l) of section 2, even if the juvenile ceases to be so on or before the date of commencement of this Act and the provisions of this Act shall apply as if the said provisions had been in force, for all purposes and at all material times when the alleged offence was committed.” After discussing the judgment on the topic including the judgment rendered after 2006 which in fact had considered the amendments made in the year 2006 in the Principal Act of 2000, the Supreme court has held that the benefit of the amendment would also be available to all those persons who are in conflict with the law and having completed the age of 18 years retrospectively. The case in hand is covered by the amendment proviso of section 2K read with sections 2I, 7A and 20 of the Juvenile Justice act. However, before parting with this order, it would be fair to record the submissions of Mr. Chitaranjan Sinha, Special Public Prosecutor appearing in this case. Mr. Sinha has pointed out that the petitioner has claimed that he was born in 1981 0n the basis of an admit card which describes him as Anjani Kumar, son of Dwarika Prasad Singh whereas in the FIR the petitioner is described as Anjani Singh, son of Dwarika Singh. This aspect of the matter would naturally require that an enquiry should be conducted by the court under section 7A of the Act to determine whether the petitioner was a juvenile or not and thereafter send the matter to the Board to pass an appropriate order and sentence regarding the order. Accordingly, the order, dated 30.11.2009 is hereby quashed and I direct the Additional Sessions Judge III, Patna to 5 determine the age of the petitioner in accordance with section 7A of the 2000 Act and pass appropriate orders in the case with respect to the petitioner thereafter. In the result, this application is allowed. haque (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)