IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.158 of 2010 Medni Rai, son of Pradeep Rai, resident of Village- Sahpur Barant, P.O. Jalalpur P.S. Patori, District- Samastipur ---- Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. The Home Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Inspector General of Police (Prison), Bihar. 4. The Jail Superintendent, Central Jail, Muzaffarpur. --------- 3. 15.3.2010 Heard Mr. Krishna Kant Singh for the petitioner, and Mr. Nilu Agrawal, learned Government Advocate No.10 for the respondents. First Information Report was lodged against 15 persons including the petitioner way back in 1994. They were ultimately convicted by the learned sessions court by judgment 25.7.2001, under Sections 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, as well as Section 27 of the Arms Act. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner and others had moved this Court by preferring Cr. Appeal No. 457 of 2001 (Parichhan Rai & Ors. V. The State of Bihar), which was disposed of along with the analogous appeal, whereby the conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial court were maintained. The judgment of 2 this Court attained finality. The petitioner continues to be in custody. Relying on the provisions of Section 7-A of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Amendment Act, 2006, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks a direction to release the petitioner on the ground that he was below 18 years of age on the date of the occurrence. Section 7-A of the Act has been inserted by the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Amendment Act 2006 (No.33 of 2006), with effect from 22.8.2006, and 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 enquiry, 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 3 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.” The petitioner has not placed on record copy of the judgment of the learned trial court, but has annexed a copy of the judgment of this Court. It appears to us on a perusal of the same that this question was never raised before the two courts. We are not inclined to interfere in writ jurisdiction at this belated stage. It appears to us to be a contrivance on the part of the petitioner to obtain unmerited relief under section 7-A of the Act. There is no merit in this writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed. Vinay/ ( S. K. Katriar ,J. ) (Mungeshwar Sahoo, J.)