sat 1 wp 1624-2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1624 OF 2011 Ismail Mehtab Jamadar ...Petitioner vs. The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent Mr.Avinash Jamadar for the Petitioner. Mr.P.A. Pol, PP for the State. CORAM : B.H. MARLAPALLE & U.D. SALVI, JJ. JULY 14, 2011 P.C. :- 1 We have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. 2 The petitioner has been convicted and sentenced to suffer life imprisonment in Sessions Case No.110/1995. Pursuant to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Pratap Singh vs. State of Jharkhand (AIR 2005 SC 2731) and the framing of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of sat 2 wp 1624-2011 Children) Rules, 2007, the petitioner submitted an application which came to be registered as Criminal Misc.Application No.521/2009 and claimed that he was born on 16th January, 1979 and as on the date of the offence i.e. 27th March, 1995, he was about 17 years of age, but less than 18 and therefore, he was a juvenile in conflict with law. He relied upon the decision of this Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition No. 1/99. He submitted before the Additional Sessions Judge a copy of the Birth Certificate (Exhibit 17) but he did not step into the witness box nor did he examine either of his parents. 3 The learned Additional Sessions Judge considered the Scheme of Rule 1 of the Juvenile Justice Rules, 2007, the order passed by this Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition No.1/99, the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Pratap Singh (supra) and another judgment of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Thimmakku vs. Bandlu Rangappa (AIR 1977 Karnataka 115) and held held that the sat 3 wp 1624-2011 petitioner could not prove that he was a juvenile as on the date of the offence. The learned Additional Sessions Judge further held that it was necessary for the petitioner to examine the witnesses in support of the Birth Certificate at Exhibit 17 which was issued by the Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Akkalkot, and therefore, he could not establish that his date of birth was 16th January, 1979. 4 We have given our anxious considerations to the arguments advanced across the Bar and the reasons given by the Sessions Judge in the impugned order and we find that the order does not suffer from any error apparent on the face of record. 5 Hence, the petition fails at the threshold and the same is hereby dismissed. (U.D. SALVI, J) (B.H. MARLAPALLE, J)