CRL.A 915/2009 Page No.1 of 4 THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on: 11.08.2010 + CRL. M. A. 13361/2010 & CRL.A 915/2009 SANJEEV @ VISHAL ... Appellant – versus – STATE (NCT) OF DELHI ... Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case:- For the Appellant : Mr A. J. Bhambhani with Ms Nisha Bhambhani, Ms Lakshita Seth and Ms Sonia Raina For the Respondent : Ms Richa Kapoor CORAM:- HON’BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HON’BLE MR JUSTICE V.K. JAIN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in Digest ? BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL) 1. By way of this application, the appellant Sanjeev @ Vishal, who is confined in Central Jail No. 2, Tihar, New Delhi and who has been produced before us by virtue of production warrant, claims the benefit of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the said Act’). It is also prayed that the sentence dated 09.09.2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge be quashed and the appellant be released as he was a juvenile at the time of the commission of the offence. CRL.A 915/2009 Page No.2 of 4 2. The date of the offence in the present case is 16.04.2000. The appellant’s date of birth is said to be less than 18 years of age on the date of the incident. If this is correct, he would be entitled to the benefit of the said Act particularly in view of the provisions of Section 7A read with Section 20 thereof. In order to ascertain as to whether the appellant was actually a juvenile on the date of the commission of the offence, a status report was sought from the respondent/ State. The same was submitted and it is on record that the school leaving certificate of the appellant was verified from the Government Sarvodaya Bal Vidyalaya, K-Block, Mangolpuri, Delhi. The Principal of the school issued a certificate dated 01.02.2010, according to which the date of birth of the appellant, as per the school record, was 26.04.1982. The school leaving certificate was issued on 08.01.2001. It is, therefore, apparent that the appellant was a juvenile on the date of the offence, being less than 18 years of age. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant, on instructions from the appellant, who is present in Court, submitted that the appellant admits the finding recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge that he had committed the offence. He consequently, does not press this appeal on merits insofar as the findings are concerned but presses for the benefit to be extended to him as per the said Act. 4. We find that co-accused Sundar @ Sanju also claimed that he was a juvenile at the stage of appeal before this Court. By an order dated 23.04.2010, a Division Bench of this Court, while disposing of his CRL.A 915/2009 Page No.3 of 4 application and appeal, accepted his plea of juvenility and directed that he be released on account of the fact that he had already undergone detention for more than three years which was beyond the maximum period for which a juvenile could be sentenced to a special home in terms of Section 15 of the said Act. 5. In the present case, however, the appellant, although he is to be regarded as a juvenile under the said Act, has not undergone the maximum period of three years. However, the appellant has already undergone a sentence for almost a period of two years. We have also examined the impugned judgment and we find that the role ascribed to the appellant is only of catching hold of the deceased and no injury is said to have been caused by him. 6. Considering these circumstances as also the fact that the appellant is now about 28 years old, it would not be appropriate to send him to a special home and to keep him in the company of juveniles. Consequently, we feel that it would be in the interest of justice that he is directed to be released forthwith, provided that he is not required in any other case. We make it clear once again that the finding with regard to the commission of the offence is not challenged by the appellant and the same stands. However, because of the fact that the appellant was a juvenile in view of the provisions of the said Act, the sentence stands quashed. It is further clarified that the appeals of the co-accused persons, who were not juveniles within the meaning of the said Act on the date of the commission CRL.A 915/2009 Page No.4 of 4 of the offence, are to be dealt with on their own merits, unaffected by any of the observations made in this order. The application and the appeal stand disposed of. BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J V.K. JAIN, J AUGUST 11, 2010 SR