Crl. Revision No.842 of 2002 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No.842 of 2002 Date of decision : 21.04.2010 Raj Kumar .... Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana ....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Ravi Kiran Dahiya, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Manish Deswal, DAG, Haryana. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (Oral) Raj Kumar has filed the present revision petition. He has been convicted by the Court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonepat in a complaint filed by Government Food Inspector. The petitioner has been held guilty for offence under Section 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Act and has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. A fine of Rs.2000/- was also imposed and it is ordered that in default of payment of fine, petitioner shall undergo imprisonment for a period of two months. Fine was paid. Aggrieved with the same, the petitioner had filed an appeal. The appeal was dismissed. Conviction was upheld and sentence was maintained. Prosecution case is that on 22.05.1985 at about 6.30 AM, Government Food Inspector S.L. Anand accompanied by A.R. Nehra Crl. Revision No.842 of 2002 -2- Government Food Inspector and Dr. Baldev Dutta had intercepted the accused near railway workshop, Sonepat. Petitioner was carrying 30 ltrs. of cow milk in two drums, meant for the public sale. According to the procedure prescribed, 660 ml. grams of milk was purchased from a drum containing 20 litres of cow milk. It was further stated in the complaint that the milk was properly stirred. Three samples were prepared. One of the samples was sent to the Public Analyst, Haryana, Chandigarh. The Public Analyst vide its report Ex.PE opined that the milk fat was 2 per cent, and milk solids not fat were 4.5 per cent. Thus the milk fat was deficient by 50 per cent and milk solids not fat was deficient by 4.7 per cent. Since the sample did not conform to the prescribed standard, milk was held to be adulterated. Counsel for the petitioner has not assailed his conviction. He has urged before this Court that the sample was drawn in May 1985. Firstly, notice of accusation was served upon the petitioner on 17.11.1988. At that time, age of the petitioner was recorded as 18 years. Thereafter, on 18.12.1996 when the case of the petitioner was to be tried as a warrant case a charge was framed and his age was recorded as 22 years. Counsel states that as per prosecution case itself from the notice of accusation and the charge sheet on the date of occurrence petitioner was less than 16 years of age. It is further submitted that there was no doubt that if age of the petitioner is determined from any angle, he was less than 18 years of age. In Hari Ram versus State of Rajasthan and another, 2009(2) RCR (Criminal) 878 it was held that all persons who were below the age of 18 years on the date of commission of offence prior to 1.04.2001 Crl. Revision No.842 of 2002 -3- would be treated as juveniles even if the claim of juvenility was raised after they had attained the age of 18 years on or before the date of commencement of the Act and were undergoing sentence upon being convicted. In that case, Hon'ble Apex Court relied upon amendment brought in the Act in 2006 whereby the provisions of the Act were extended to cover juveniles who had not completed 18 years of age on or before the coming into force of the Juvenile Justice Act. Paras 31 and 32 of the judgment read as under:- 31. None of the aforesaid decisions are of much assistance in deciding the question with regard to the applicability of the definition of "Juvenile" in Section 2(k) and 2(I) of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, as amended in 2006, whereby the provisions of the said Act were extended to cover juveniles who had not completed 18 years of age on or before the coming into force of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000 on 1.4.2001 (Emphasis supplied). The effect of the proviso to Section 7-A introduced by the Amending Act makes it clear that the claim of juvenility may be raised before any Court which 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 the Act and the Rules made thereunder which includes the definition of "Juvenile" in Section 2(k) and 2(I) of the Act even if the Juvenile had ceased to be so on or before (emphasis supplied) the date of commencement of the Act. The said intention of the legislature was reinforced by the amendment effected by the said Amending Act to Section 20 by introduction of the Proviso and the Explanation thereto, wherein also it has been clearly indicated that in any pending case in any Court the determination of juvenility of such a juvenile has to be in terms of clause 2(I) even if Crl. Revision No.842 of 2002 -4- the juvenile ceases to be so "on or before the date of commencement of this Act" (emphasis supplied) and it was also indicated that the provisions of the Act would apply as if the said provisions had been in force for all purposes and at all material times when the alleged offence was committed. 32. Apart from the aforesaid provisions of the 2000 Act, as amended, and the Juvenile Justice Rules, 2007, Rule 98 thereof has to be read in tandem with Section 20 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, as amended by the Amendment Act, 2006, which provides that even in disposed of cases of juveniles in conflict with law, the State Government or the Board could, either suo motu or on an application made for the purpose, review the case of a juvenile, determine the juvenility and pass an appropriate order under Section 64 of the Act for the immediate release of the juvenile whose period of detention had exceeded the maximum period provided in Section 15 of the Act, i.e., 3 years. It was concluded by Hon'ble the Apex Court as under:- "Accordingly, a juvenile who had not completed eighteen years on the date of commission of the offence was also entitled to the benefits of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, as if the provisions of Section 2(k) had always been in existence even during the operation of the 1986 Act." Thus due to the retrospective operation of the amendment petitioner is held to be juvenile on the date of occurrence. In the present case, occurrence pertains to year 1985. Petitioner is already in the corridors of the Court for the last 25 years. Petitioner has been sentenced to undergo six months simple imprisonment. It is stated that he has undergone one month of his actual sentence. Therefore no useful purpose will be served in the facts of the present case to remit the matter to the Juvenile Justice Crl. Revision No.842 of 2002 -5- Board. The present petition is disposed of with a direction that the sentence of the petitioner shall stand reduced to the period already undergone and no further proceedings shall be initiated. (KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA) 21-04-2010 JUDGE manju