IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr. Misc. No.52996 of 2007 MANNU CHAUBEY @ VIDYA BHUSHAN CHAUBEY, son of Babua Ram Chaubey, Resident of village- Dalsagar, P.S. & District- Buxar ...Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Sunita Chaubey D/o Sri Subhas Chaubey r/o village- Dalsagar, P.S & District-Buxar …Opposite Parties ----------- For the petitioner : Mr. Krishna Prasad Singh, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Anil Kumar-3, Advocate For the State : Mr. D. Mehta, APP ------------ 4/ 16.04.2010 The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 5.10.2007, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-cum- Fast Track Court No. I, Buxar, in Sessions Trial No.72 of 1999 by which he has rejected the petitioner’s prayer for declaring him juvenile on erroneous grounds. The petitioner was one of the accused persons in Buxar P.S. case no.168 of 1991 instituted by Sunita Chaubey-opposite party no.2 for the offence under sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 307, 435 Indian Penal Code. The petitioner claimed that his date of birth was 6.4.1975, whereas, date of occurrence was 8.11.1991 and, therefore, he was below 18 years of age on the date of occurrence. However, the trial court erroneously dismissed the application holding that the petitioner was an adult on the date the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, came into force, whereas, the established law is that the determination of juvenility has to be determined on the date of occurrence and not from the date the Act came into existence. For this - 2 - reason, an amendment had been brought into the existing law by way of Section 2 (l) by which it was specified that “juvenile in conflict with law” means a juvenile who is alleged to have committed an offence and section 7-A specify the procedure to be followed when claim of juvenility is raised before any court which reads thus: “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 inquiry, 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 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.” However, it appears that the impugned order had been passed on 5.10.2007, on which date the case was posted for examination of the accused persons under section 313 Cr. P. C., but I am informed at the Bar that there has been no progress in the trial since then. In view of the same, this application being taken up almost three years after the impugned order was passed could be still considered. - 3 - In view of such, this application is allowed but subject to the trial not having been concluded. In the result, the application is allowed. JA/- (Anjana Prakash, J.)