-:1:- IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 375 OF 2008 APPLICATION NO. 375 OF 2008 APPLICATION NO. 375 OF 2008 Shivaji Mahadeo Hulage. ... Applicant. V/s. The State of Maharashtra. ... Respondents. .... Ms. Rebecca Gonsalvez for the Applicant. Mr. P.S. Hingorani, A.P.P. for the State. .... CORAM CORAM CORAM : F.I. REBELLO & : F.I. REBELLO & : F.I. REBELLO & K.U. K.U. K.U. CHANDIWAL,JJ. CHANDIWAL,JJ. CHANDIWAL,JJ. DATE DATE DATE : 16TH JUNE, 2008. : 16TH JUNE, 2008. : 16TH JUNE, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. : : : . The Applicant herein had preferred an appeal against his conviction in Criminal Appeal No.868 of 2001. The learned Bench of this Court by order dated 6th July 2006 was pleased to dismiss the appeal. 2. The Applicant has now filed this application under Section 7-A of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. The contention of the Applicant is that at the time of the incident which took place on 21st November 2000, the Applicant was a juvenile. It is submitted that when the Applicant was convicted and the appeal of the Applicant was dismissed on 6th July 2006, the definition of juvenile was a person whose age was 16 years or less. By the amendment of 2006 which came into effect from 22.08.2006, a juvenile is now held to -:2:- be a person who is 18 years or less. It is now submitted though the Trial Court or this Court did not consider the issue as to whether the person was a juvenile as it was not raised nonetheless considering Section 7-A of the Act of 2000 as amended. It is open to a juvenile in conflict with law to apply to this Court. Reference for that purpose is placed on the unreported Judgment of this Court, passed in the case of Imtiyaz Hussain Mumtiyaz Sheikh V/s. State of Maharashtra decided on 2nd May 2008 in Criminal Appeal No.75f0 of 2004 with Criminal Application No.420 of 2008. In paragraph 10 this Court observed as under :- " On a conspectus and consideration of all these provisions it becomes clear that what is relevant is the date of offence and if that person falls within the definition of ‘Juvenile in conflict with law’ then irrespective of whether proceedings are pending or the proceedings are in appeal or revision or even if proceedings had been closed and if an application is made by the juvenile who is undergoing a sentence, then on a proper reading of Section 7-A, together with Section 20, the provisions of the Act are applicable to such ‘juvenile in conflict with law.’ To that extant the judgment in Pratap Singh (Supra) considering the Amendment of -:3:- 2006 will not apply to proceedings in respect of a ‘juvenile in conflict with law’ after the Juvenile Justice Amendment Act, 2006. The opening words of Section 20, therefore, clearly indicate that the definition of ‘juvenile’ is retrospective and the definition of juvenile under the Juvenile Justice Act of 2000 will be the applicable law. In other words, if the child or juvenile was less than 18 years on the date of the commission of the offence, the juvenile will be covered by the provisions of the Act of 2000 together with the 2006 amendment." It would thus be clear that even if an appeal is not pending, it is open to a juvenile in conflict with law who falls within that definition as amended, to apply and it is for this Court to consider or take such other steps to examine whether such applicant was a juvenile in conflict with law at the time the incident took place. 3. The Petitioner has produced a School Leaving Certificate in which the date of birth is shown as 01.06.1984. In terms of the rules framed by the State of Maharashtra, known as the Maharashtra Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules 2002 and the notification thereunder, the birth certificate -:4:- from the school can be considered. We ask the learned A.P.P. to get the certificate verified by the Police Authority. The learned Counsel produced a fax sent by the Police Authority which confirms that the certificate is genuine. 4. Considering the date of birth and the date of the incident, the Applicant would be a juvenile in conflict with law on the date of the incident. The Applicant has already undergone more than three years R.I. whereas under the Act, the maximum order that Board could have passed would be of three years. 5. Considering the above, we pass the following order :- (i) The Applicant Shivaji Mahadeo Hulage is directed to be released forthwith if not required in any other matter. (ii) Application is disposed accordingly. (F.I. (F.I. (F.I. REBELLO, J.) REBELLO, J.) REBELLO, J.) (K.U. (K.U. (K.U. CHANDIWAL,J.) CHANDIWAL,J.) CHANDIWAL,J.)