1 hvn IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2361 OF 2010 Chandra Kariya Devadiga ... Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and Anr. ... Respondents Mr. N.N. Gavankar i/by Mr. R.V. Joshi for the Petitioner. Mrs. M.M. Deshmukh, A.P.P. for State. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE & ANOOP V. MOHTA, JJ. DATED: 17TH AUGUST, 2010 P. C.: Petitioner came to be arrested on 7.5.1995 in connection with C.R. No. 61 of 1995 registered with Jogeshwari Police Station. On filing of the chargesheet in the said C.R. he was prosecuted in Sessions Case No. 1158 of 1995 for the offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C. and the learned Additional Sessions Judge was pleased to convict and sentence him for life as per his order dated 27.7.1998. He filed Criminal Appeal No. 732 of 1998 against the said order of conviction and sentence and it was dismissed by this court on 9.12.2003. 2 In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution he claims for the benefit of section 7A of the Juvenile Justice ( Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 on the ground that he was a "juvenile in convict with law" as defined under Section 2(l) of the said Act as he was born on 09.09.1977 and on the date of offence i.e. 7.5.1995 he was less than 18 years of age. Along with the petition, he has annexed a photostat copy of the birth certificate issued by the Tahasildar, Kundapur District Udupi in the State of Karnataka, which has been issued for the first time on 26.3.2010. The plea of juvenile is being taken for the first time even after the appeal has been dismissed and the Petitioner has suffered more than 15 years of actual imprisonment and it is well settled that the birth certificate, claimed to have been issued by a public authority, is required to be tested by allowing the parties to lead evidence before the trial court. The prosecution must be given sufficient opportunity to contest the claim so made. We therefore, direct the learned Additional Sessions Judge for Greater Mumbai to record findings regarding the date of birth of the Petitioner on the basis of the evidence that he will adduce, both 3 the oral as well as documentary. Undoubtedly the learned Public Prosecutor will be entitled to cross examine all such witnesses and in addition lead further evidence. The trial court to record the findings within a period of two months from the date of first appearance of the petitioner with specific application along with a copy of this order. We also make it clear that the onus of proving his date of birth will squarely lie on the Petitioner. The petition is disposed off with the above directions. Writ to go to the trial court forthwith. (ANOOP V. MOHTA,J.) (B.H. MARLAPALLE,J.)