1 Criminal Writ Petition No.430 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.430 OF 2011 Balu @ Raosaheb S/o.Vyankatrao Pawade PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENT Mr.Vijay Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr.S.K.Tambe, learned A.P.P. for respondent State. (CORAM : P.V.HARDAS, AND A.V.POTDAR, J.J.) DATE : 22/06/2011 ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per P.V.Hardas, J.) 1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned counsels for the parties, this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. By this petition under Article 226 of The Constitution of India, the petitioner prays for issuance of a writ directing the release of the petitioner forthwith. 3. The facts in brief, as are germane for the decision of this writ petition, may briefly be stated thus. 2 Criminal Writ Petition No.430 of 2011 It appears that the petitioner, who claims that he was less than 18 years on 03/01/2001 when the offence punishable u/s. 302 of the Indian Penal Code is alleged to have been committed by him alongwith other accused. The petitioner was put to trial and came to be convicted alongwith the other accused for offence punishable u/s. 302 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The appeal filed by the petitioner also came to be dismissed and thereafter the petitioner submitted an application before the Ad-Hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Nanded, which came to be rejected on 10/12/2009. The Additional Sessions Judge, Nanded found that the certificate produced by the petitioner was in respect of date of birth, which was recorded as 13/04/1983, whereas in the Grampanchayat record, his date of birth was recorded as 12/04/1983. The Trial Court therefore found that no satisfactory evidence have been adduced by the petitioner in respect of his date of birth. The petitioner therefore filed Criminal Writ Petition No.829/2010 in this Court which came to be allowed by this Court by judgment dated 16/12/2010. The Division Bench, at para 4 of the said judgment, while allowing the petition, quashed and set aside the order of the Trial Court and remitted the matter to the Juvenile Justice Board for determining the age of the petitioner. 4. Pursuant to the judgment of this Court, it appears that proceedings were initiated before the Juvenile Justice Board and the Board by its order dated 02/04/2011, after appreciating the evidence, 3 Criminal Writ Petition No.430 of 2011 recorded the finding that the date of birth of the petitoner is 13/04/1983 and thus the petitioner was below the age of 18 years at the time of commission of the offence. 5. Mr.Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner states that in the light of the findings recorded by the Juvenile Justice Board, the petitioner is entitled to be released forthwith as the petitioner is a juvenile in conflict with law. The learned A.P.P. states that in the light of the findings of the Board, which have not been challenged in this Court so far, the petitioner is entitled to be released. In the light of the fact that the Juvenile Justice Board, after recording the evidence and after appreciating the documents has recorded the finding that the date of birth of the petitioner is 13/04/1983 and consequently the petitioner was below the age of 18 years, when the offence is alleged to have been committed, according to us, the petitioner is entitled to be released forthwith. 6. Accordingly, this writ petition succeeds and the respondents are directed to release the petitioner forthwith, if not wanted in any other case. Rule is thus made absolute on the above terms with no orders as to costs. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) (P.V.HARDAS, J.) khs/JUNE 2011/cri.w.p.430-11