1 Criminal W.P. No.960 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.960 OF 2010 Ishwar Yadav Patil PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENT Miss.Tejaswini Adhav, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr.N.R.Shaikh, learned A.P.P. for respondent State. (CORAM : P.V.HARDAS, AND A.V.POTDAR, J.J.) DATE : 13/12/2010 ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per P.V.Hardas, J.) 1. A communication sent by the petitioner through jail came to be registered as Criminal Writ Petition. We had accordingly appointed Adv.Miss.Tejaswini Adhav, learned counsel to represent the petitioner in this petition. The limited grievance of the petitioner is that on the date of commission of the offence, he was below age of 18 years and consequently is now entitled to be released. 2. In that light of the matter, therefore, we issue Rule, making it returnable forthwith and with the consent of learned counsels for the parties, heard the petition at this stage. As pointed out by us above, 2 Criminal W.P. No.960 of 2010 the communication of the petitioner is that on the date of the incident, i.e. on 19/01/1991, the petitioner was below the age of 18 years and consequently his detention in Central Jail is unwarranted. The petitioner came to be convicted for an offence punishable u/s. 302 r/w. 34 of The IPC and was sentenced to imprisonment for life. Petitioner alongwith other accused had filed Criminal Appeal No. 267/1992 in this Court. The Division Bench of this Court dismissed the said appeal by confirming his conviction and sentence. The learned counsel appointed on behalf of the petitioner has no instructions as to whether the petitioner had filed any proceedings before the Supreme Court, questioning the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court. Be that as it may, the petitioner has produced on record school leaving certificate issued by the Head Master, Nilkantheshwar High School, Chawalkhede, Tal.Dharangaon, Dist. Jalgaon, which shows that the death of birth of the petitioner as per the school record is 10/04/1973. Thus the petitioner contends that on the date of the incident, i.e. on 19/01/1991, the petitioner was below the age of 18 years. 3. On notice being issued to the respondents, the respondents have filed their affidavit in reply. In the affidavit in reply, it is stated that inquiry was made with the Head Master, who had issued the certificate and the certificate was found to be correct. Further it is stated that medical examination i.e. Radiological examination of the petitioner came to be conducted and as per the medical examination, 3 Criminal W.P. No.960 of 2010 the age of the petitioner was below 18 years on the date of the offence. 4. In the light of such impeachable evidence, we allow this petition and direct that the petitioner be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case. Rule made absolute as indicated above. Fees payable to the learned counsel appointed on behalf of the petitioner quantified at Rs.2,000/- (A.V.POTDAR, J.) (P.V.HARDAS, J.) khs/DEC. 2010/cri.w.p.960-10