( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.407 OF 2005 CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.407 OF 2005 CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.407 OF 2005 Mohd. Nabi alias Babloo alias Bhasrat .. Petitioner. Versus The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent. Mr.Sanjeev P. Kadam for the petitioner. Mr.H.J.Dedhia, A.P.P. for State. CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. DATED : 25th April, 2008. DATED : 25th April, 2008. DATED : 25th April, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard Mr.Sanjeev P. Kadam for the petitioner and Mr.H.J.Dedhia, A.P.P. for the State. 2. The petitioner is shown as accused in Sessions Case No.1138 of 2001 which is presently pending in the Court of Sessions Court at Bombay. The petitioner herein filed an application before the learned Additional Sessions Judge being Miscellaneous Application No.1219 of 2005 contending therein that the petitioner was a juvenile within the meaning of the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the said "Act") and, therefore, the learned Additional Sessions Judge for Greater Bombay had no jurisdiction to try and entertain the said case. In support of the contention that the petitioner was a juvenile on the date of occurrence i.e. 2.9.2001, the petitioner had annexed a Xerox ( 2 ) copy of the school leaving certificate issued by the school and had contended that the date of birth of the petitioner is 25.10.1985 and if the date of occurrence i.e. 2.9.2001 is considered with reference to the date of birth, namely; 25.10.1985, the petitioner would be a juvenile and that his case will have to be transferred to the Juvenile Justice Board for trial in accordance with the provisions of the said Act. The said application came to be decided by the learned Additional Sessions Judge by his order dated 21.10.2005 and that the said application came to be rejected. Being aggrieved by the order dated 21.10.2005, the petitioner has filed this revision. 3. I have heard learned Advocate Mr.Kadam, appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned A.P.P. Mr.Dedhia appearing on behalf of the State. 4. Learned A.P.P. Mr.Dedhia in the first place and in all fairness pointed out that the investigating officer was deputed to visit the concerned school wherein the petitioner was studying and this school authorities have issued a duplicate school leaving certificate to the concerned police officer wherein the date of birth of the petitioner is shown as 25.10.1985. This is the same date of birth as is mentioned in the school leaving certificate which was ( 3 ) produced by the petitioner before the learned Additional Sessions Judge. This being the position, the date of birth of the petitioner will have to be treated as 25.10.1985. 5. A perusal of the impugned order would go to show that the learned Additional Sessions Judge for Greater Bombay (hereinafter referred to as the "Trial Judge") did not accept the birth certificate produced by the petitioner as true and genuine and observed that the petitioner has managed to convert the date of birth, namely; 25.10.1985 by deleting the word "Pacchis" by converting into "Pacchasi". Now that the concerned police officer has confirmed that the school leaving certificate produced by the petitioner mentions the date of birth as 25.10.1985, the stand taken by the learned Trial Judge that the petitioner had committed forgery cannot be accepted. Even otherwise, the observations of the learned Trial Judge that the petitioner had committed forgery cannot stand because if the petitioner were to convert the word "Pacchis" into the word "Pacchasi", it would mean that the real date of birth of the petitioner would be 25.10.1950 and in that case, in the year 2001, the petitioner would be a person of at least 50 years. The police have conducted arrest panchnama on 3.9.2001 that of the petitioner wherein the petitioner is shown ( 4 ) as aged about 19 years. Certainly, if at the relevant time i.e. on 3.9.2001, the police would have seen the petitioner that of in the vicinity of the year 50 years, the police would not have recorded the age of the petitioner as 19 years. Apart from this, in the birth certificate which is produced by the petitioner, the date of birth is mentioned in the figure also and it is mentioned as 25th October, 1985 and hence the belief viewed by the learned Trial Judge cannot sustain and, therefore, I am inclined to observe that the learned Trial Judge erred in coming to the conclusion that the birth certificate produced by the petitioner was forged one. For the aforesaid reasons, I am inclined to set aside the order passed by the learned Trial Judge and treat the date of birth of the petitioner as 25.10.1985. 6. Once the date of birth of the petitioner is treated as 25.10.1985, the petitioner would be below the age 18 years on the date of the alleged incident i.e. 2.9.2001. It is pertinent to note that the provisions of the said Act came into effect on 1.4.2001 and, therefore, if the incident has taken place on 2.9.2001, the provisions of the said Act would be attracted and in the said Act, the word "Juvenile" is defined as a person, who has not completed 18 years of age. As such, on 2.9.2001, the ( 5 ) petitioner was a juvenile within the meaning of the said Act as his date of birth is fixed as 25.10.1985. Once the petitioner is treated as a juvenile, his case cannot be conducted before the Additional Sessions Judge and his case will have to be taken up by the Juvenile Justice Board set up under Section 4 of the Act. 7. In view of the aforesaid directions, I am inclined to set aside the impugned order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay and the case of the petitioner shall be heard and decided by the Juvenile Justice Board set up under Section 4 of the said Act. Since a common charge-sheet was filed against the petitioner, who is now treated as juvenile and against one more person, who is an adult person, it would be necessary to direct the concerned investigating officer to file fresh charge-sheet before the Juvenile Justice Board within a specified time limit so that after the filing of the charge-sheet before the Juvenile Justice Board, the petitioner can file an application for bail before the same. 8. Since the petitioner has now been styled as juvenile within the meaning of the said Act, the petitioner now cannot be detained in a jail and the ( 6 ) petitioner will have to be transferred to the observation home situate at Greater Bombay. This will have to be done forthwith. 9. For the reasons mentioned above, I pass the following order :- a) The order dated 21.10.2005 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge for Greater Bombay below Miscellaneous Application No.1219 of 2005 in Sessions Case No.1138 of 2001 is set aside. b) The petitioner be treated as a juvenile within the meaning of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. The Senior P.I. of Shivaji Nagar police station is hereby directed to file a separate charge-sheet in regard to the present petitioner concerning C.R.No.125 of 2001 of Shivaji Nagar police station before Juvenile Justice Board. This shall be done within 20 days from today. After such a charge-sheet is filed, it will be open for the petitioner to move the Juvenile Justice Board for bail in accordance with the provisions of law. ( 7 ) c) Now that the petitioner is styled as a juvenile, the petitioner, who is presently detained in jail will have to be transferred to the observation home and accordingly, it is hereby ordered that the petitioner shall be transferred from the jail to the observation home, which is situate within the limits of Greater Bombay. 10. Mr.Dedhia submitted that his Office does not know as to in which jail, the petitioner is locked. In view of this, the copy of the operative part of the order shall be sent to the Superintendent, Mumbai Central Jail, Mumbai for transferring the petitioner from the jail to the observation home. If the petitioner is not detained in the Mumbai Central Jail, the Superintendent of the Mumbai Central Jail shall arrange to identify the jail in which the petitioner is presently locked and shall arrange to transmit the said operative part of the order to the concerned jail for acting upon it. 11. Revision Application stands disposed off in the above terms. (R.Y. GANOO, J.) (R.Y. GANOO, J.) (R.Y. GANOO, J.)