1 WP 1709/09 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1709 OF 2009 Santosh Arjun Bhekre ..Petitioner. Versus State of Maharashtra (Guhagar Police Station) ..Respondent. Mr.Mahesh Jethmalani with Dr.Yugmohit Choudhary for the petitioner. Mr.P.A. Paul, PP with Mrs.V.R. Bhosale, APP for State. CORAM : Dr.D.Y. Chandrachud & J.P. Devadhar, JJ. DATE : 20 July, 2010. P.C. : 1. This writ petition invoking Article 226 of the Constitution and Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was placed before a Division Bench consisting of Hon’ble Smt. Justice Ranjana Desai & Hon’ble Smt. Justice Mridula R. Bhatkar. By an order dated 27 January 2010, their Lordships directed the Registry to seek appropriate orders from the then Acting Chief Justice, in view of the fact that on 9 February 2009, a Division Bench consisting of Chief Justice Swantanter Kumar (as His Lordship then was) and one of us (D.Y. Chandrachud, J.) had dismissed the application filed by the petitioner through jail. The prayer in the present writ petition was 2 WP 1709/09 that the Court should set aside the earlier order and restore Criminal Application No.110 of 2009. 2. In pursuance of the order of the Division Bench, the Registry has placed the petition before this Court after obtaining orders of the learned Chief Justice. 3. The petitioner was tried for the commission of an offence under Section 302 of the Penal Code and was acquitted by the Sessions Court at Ratnagiri on 6 November 1992 in Sessions Case No.48 of 1992. In an appeal filed by the State, the petitioner was convicted by this Court by a judgment dated 6 August 2004 and sentenced to imprisonment for life. A Special Leave Petition against the judgment of this Court was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 9 October 2007. 3. According to the petitioner, his date of birth is 1 June 1974. If that be so, on the date of the offence, which is 25 December 1991, he was 17 years 6 months and 24 days of age. Section 7A of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2000 was amended by the Amending Act of 2006. The proviso to sub-section (1) stipulates that a claim of juvenility may be raised before any Court at any stage and shall be recognized in terms of the provisions of the Act and the Rules, even if the juvenile had ceased to be so on or before the commencement of the Act. These provisions have been 3 WP 1709/09 given a purposive interpretation in several judgments of Division Benches of this Court, including (i) Imtiyaz Hussain Mumtiyaz Sheikh V/s. State of Maharashtra1; (ii) Terence John D’Souza V/s. The State of Maharashtra (Criminal Application No.585 of 2008 in Criminal Appeal No.765 of 2002 decided on 4 July 2008). 4. Evidently the previous Criminal Application (Criminal Application No.110 of 2009) was filed by the petitioner through jail. The demands of justice would require that the petitioner should have had the benefit of legal aid counsel to represent him before the Court. We are satisfied that if the petitioner were to be granted the assistance of legal aid counsel when the Division Bench passed its order dated 9 February 2009, this Court would have been apprised of several judgments of the Division Benches of this Court construing the provisions of Section 7A. An act of a Court should cause no injustice to a litigating party before the Court and, particularly in matters affecting personal liberty, the Court should be careful to set right an injustice which has resulted from an order of a Court. The powers of the Court in such a situation including those which are conferred by Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 are wide enough to comprehend such a situation and to pass remedial orders to rectify injustice. 5. In the circumstances, we consider it appropriate to allow the 1 2008 All MR (Cri.) 3399 4 WP 1709/09 prayer of the petitioner by recalling the order dated 9 February 2009 passed by the Division Bench. Criminal Application No.110 of 2009 is restored to file and shall be placed by the Registry before the regular bench according to the roster of work. The petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. (J.P. Devadhar, J.) (Dr.D.Y. Chandrachud, J.)