1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.662 OF 2002 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.220 OF 2007 Ravi Aiyyar ..Appellant Age : 18 years, Occu : student R/o.Turai Swamipatti District Teni (Tamilnadu) V/s. The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent Mr.D.G.Khamkar, advocate, for appellant Mr.P.S.Hingorani, A.P.P, for the State CORAM : F.I.REBELLO & K.U.CHANDIWAL, JJ. DATE : 6TH JUNE, 2008 JUDGMENT (PER F.I.REBELLO, J.) . The appellant has moved an application being Criminal Application No.220 of 2007 in Criminal Appeal No.662 of 2002. By that application the applicant has invoked Section 7A of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2000, (as amended in 2006 by the Amendment Act of 2006, Act No.33 of 2006). 2 2. In view of the said application and as report had been called by this Court which has been submitted and which indicates that as on the date of the offence i.e. on 28th June, 2000 the applicant would be a juvenile within the purview of the Act. The learned counsel has submitted that the appellant is not pressing Criminal Appeal. In the light of that Criminal Appeal is dismissed as not pressed. 3. In so far as application is concerned, the report submitted would show that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has taken on record various documents (i) Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 which shows date of birth as 06.05.1983 and (ii) School Leaving Certificate which shows date of birth as 10.05.1983. Though, there is a variance of the date nonetheless there is no dispute that it pertains to the same namely the applicant herein. 4. At that time when the applicant was convicted under the Act which was in force, a Juvenile was defined as a person less than 3 sixteen years and less. Under the new Act, a Juvenile is a person aged 18 years and less. The issue was whether the provisions of the new Act could apply specially when the appeal was pending, had come up for consideration in Criminal Appeal No.750 of 2004 with Criminal Application No.420 of 2008 in the case of Imtiyaz Hussain Mumtiyaz Sheikh Versus The State of Maharashtra decided by this Bench on 2nd May, 2008. One of the points we have decided is that when the appeal is pending, if an application is moved under Section 7A the benefit of new Act as amended in 2006 will have to be considered. 5. In the instant case, admittedly, the appellant is a juvenile and is in custody since 28th June, 2000. No order for more than three years could have been passed under the new Act against the juvenile. 6. In the light of that, the following order is passed. (i) We direct that the appellant be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. (F.I.REBELLO, J.) 4 (K.U.CHANDIWAL, J.)