MOHD. FEROZ KHAN@ FEROZ versus STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
[2015] 15 S.C.R. 147, Supreme Court of India, 2015
Outcome: Appeal(s) allowed (Granted)
Segment: Ratio
[2015] 15 S.C.R. 147 
MOHD. FEROZ KHAN@ FEROZ 
v. 
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH 
(Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 67 of 2014) 
DECEMBER 16, 2015 
[J. CHELAMESWAR AND 
ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 
2000 -
ss.2(1), 20 - Convietion of petitioner for offence of C 
murder - Plea of juvenility raised before Supreme court for 
the first time for setting aside the sentence - Held: Since 
petitioner was below 18 years on the date of commission of 
offence, the provisions of Act of 2000 would apply in his case -
Matter remitted to Juvenile Justice Board for· disposal of D 
petitioner's case- Penal Code, 1860- ss. 1208, 302 and 396. 
Allowing the appeal and remitting the matter to the 
Juvenile Justice Board, the Court 
HELD: It was held in *Hari Ram case that Section E 
20 enables the cou·rt to consider and determine the 
juvenility of a person even after conviction by the regular 
court and also empowers the court, while maintaining 
the conviction, to set aside the sentence imposed and 
forward the case to the Juvenile Justice Board F 
concerned for passing sentence in accordance with the 
provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000. In the instant 
case, the offence was committed on 02.08.1999 and the 
petitioner was found between the age group of 16-17 
years i.e. below 18 years on the date of commission of G 
the offence. That apart, the question of juvenility of 
petitioner was not gone into till date in accordance with 
law
by any Court. The petitioner is entitled to claim the 
same relief as was granted in the case of Hari Ram by 
this Court. The impugned order in so far as it relates-to H 
147
148 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 15 S.C.R. 
A the petitioner is set aside. The matter is remitted to the 
concerned Juvenile Justice Board exercising jurisdiction 
for disposal of the petitioner's case in accordance with 
law. [Paras 16 to 19] [152-D; 153-H; 154-A-B, G-H; 155-
A-C] 
B 
c 
*Hari Ram v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. 2009 (7) 
SCR 623 : (2009) 13 SCC 211 - relied on. 
Case Law Reference 
2009 (7) SCR 623 
relied on 
Para 10 
CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition 
(Criminal) No. 67 of 2014. 
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. 
R. K. Dash, Sr.Adv., Mohd. lrshad Hanif,AarifAli Khan, 
D Advs. for the Appellant. 
E 
S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, Krishna Kumar Singh, Advs. for 
the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.· 1. This writ petition 
under Article 32 of the Constitution of India is filed by the 
petitioner (Accused No.2, in short 'A-2') to raise the plea of 
juvenility alleging inter a/ia that he was juvenile on the date of 
the commission of offence, i.e., 02.08.1999 and hence entitled 
F to seek issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari and 
Mandamus for setting aside the order of sentence dated 
28.06.2004 passed by the Additional Metropolitan Sessions 
Judge, Hyderabad in Sessions Case No. 93 of 2002 as 
confirmed by the High Court by judgment/order dated 
G 27.02.2007 in Criminal Appeal No. 1825 of 2004 and by this 
Court on 08.07.201_0 in Criminal Appeal No.435/2008 against 
him. 
2. The brief
facts of the case to appreciate the short 
H issue involved in the petition need mention infra:
MOHD. FEROZ KHAN@ FEROZ v. STATE OF A. P. 
149 
[AB HAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.] 
(a) Rama Krishana Rao (hereinafter referred to as "deceased") A 
was resident of Bodhan, Nizamabad District. He was running 
a cycle shop called 'Krishna Shop' and also a theatre. One 
Azam Ghouri (A-9) (died during the trial) who organized a 
Tanjeem along with eight persons hatched a conspiracy to 
snatch away the cash bag of the deceased. In pursuance 
B 
thereof, on 02.08.1999, Azam Ghouri (A-9) chalked out a plan 
at Sarbathi Canel Mozque, Bodhan. According to his plan, 
Maqbool @Zubair@ Shahnawaz (A-1) will snatch the bag of 
the deceased, Mohd. Feroz Khan @ Feroz (A-2), petitioner 
herein, will drive the vehicle so as to facilitate them to escape c 
from the scene after commission of the offence and other seven 
persons will watch the movements by taking shelter near the 
shop and house of the deceased. For implementation of their 
plan, oneAbdulAahth (A-6) arranged a vehicle from his friend 
(PW-12) and A-9 gave his pistol toA-1. 
D 
(b) On 02.08.1999, a lorry loaded.with spare parts of Hero 
cycle came to the shop of the deceased and the goods were . 
unloaded into the shop at 10.30 p.m. 
By that time, the 
deceased was having second show collections, which was 
estimated to Rs.40,000/-. After closing the shop, when the 
E 
deceased was proceeding to his house, which was only 500-
600 feet away, Y. Krishna Mohan (PW-1) was accompanying 
him to drop him at his house and one Nazar Khan (PW-3)
and 
Habeeb Khan were following him and all of them were going 
on foot. Suddenly A-1 intercepted and demanded the bag 
F 
from the deceased and when the deceased tried to resist, A-
1 opened fire from the pistol at the deceased thrice, snatched 
the bag and ran away. Due to that, the deceased fell down. 
PW-1, wife of the deceased (PW-2) and the daughter of the 
deceased took the deceased to Santhan Nursing Home where G 
the doctors declared him dead. Thereafter PW-1 went to the 
Police Station at about 11.50 p.m. and gave a complaint (Ex. 
P-1) to the sub-Inspector of Police and on the basis of it, a 
case was registered in Crime No.220 of 1999 under Sections 
H
150 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 15S.C.R. 
A 
120-B, 302 and 396 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 
(hereinafter referred to as 'the IPC') and Section 25 of the Arms 
Act, 1959 against the accused persons. The investigation in 
the case was completed and the charge-sheet was filed by 
the Investigating Officer. After recording of evidence, by order 
B dated 28.06.2004, the Additional Metropolitan Sessions 
Judge, Hyderabad found the accused persons guilty of the 
offences charged and convicted the petitioner herein under 
Section 235(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code 1973 
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Cr.P.C.') for the offence 
c punishable under Section 302 read with Section 109 IPC and 
sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine 
of Rs.1000/-, in default to suffer 6 months simple imprisonment. 
3. Challenging the said order, the petitioner herein 
0 
(A-2) along with other accused filed appeals before the High 
Court. The High Court by order dated 27.02.2007 in Crl. A. 
No. 1825 of 2004 upheld the judgment and order passed by 
the Additional Metropolitan Session Judge, Hyderabad. 
4. Against the said order, the petitioner herein (A-2) 
E along with other accused filed appeal bearing Crl.A. No.435 
of 2008 before this Court. This Court also dismissed the 
appeal by order dated 08.07.2010. 
5. The petitioner is serving the sentence in District Jail, 
F 
Nizamabad, District Nizamabad,A.P. 
6. The petitioner has now filed this petition on the ground
that he was 17 years, 3 months and 11 days old on the date of 
incident, i.e., 02.08.1999, and hence, in view ofthe provisions 
of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 
G 2000, he was juvenile on the date of incident. 
H 
7. It is with these background facts, the question for 
consideration in this writ Petition is whether the petitioner is 
entitled to claim any relief?
MOHD. FEROZ KHAN@FEROZ v. STATE OFA. P. 
151 
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.] 
8. The notice of this writ Petition was served on the A 
responde.nt-State and they are duly served and represented 
by the counsel. 
9. Heard Mr. R.K. Dash, learned senior counsel for the 
petitioner and Mr. S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, learned counsel for 
the respondent. 
B 
10. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner made only 
one submission. Learned counsel contended that the 
petitioner's case is fully covered by the decision rendered in 
Hari Ram vs State of Rajasthan & Anr~ [(2009) (13) SCC C 
211] and hence the petitioner is also entitled for the same relief 
which was granted to accused in the case of Hari Ram (supra). 
11. Learned counsel pointed out that since on the date 
of commission of the offence (02.08.1999), the petitioner was 
a minor i.e. 17 years, 3 months and 13 days of age (below 18 D 
years) and hence he was entitled to get the b~nefit of law laid 
down and the relief granted to accused in the case of Hari 
Ram (supra). It was his submission that since the issue of 
juvenility of the petitioner was not decided in accordance with 
law laid down by this Court by the competent authority at any E 
stage in any court proceedings and hence he has a right to 
raise such plea at any time and in any proceedings in any court 
for determination of this question notwithstanding the fact that 
he has suffered conviction from the regular courts. 
12. In reply, learned counsel opposed the prayer F
contending that no case is made out for grant of any relief and 
hence this petition should be dismissed. 
13. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on 
perusal of the record of the case, we find force in the G 
submission urged by the learned senior counsel for the 
petitioner. 
14. Indeed, even the learned counsel appearing for the 
respondent could not dispute the legal position arising in the 
H
152 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 15S.C.R. 
A case in petitioner's favour on the basis of law laid down in the 
case Hari Ram (supra) in the context of the facts alleged in 
the writ petition which remained uncontroverted on material 
issues. 
15. In our considered opinion, the facts of the case in 
B hand and the one involved in the case of Hari Ram (supra) 
are more or less similar. So far as the facts of Hari Ram's 
case (supra) are concerned, we find that the offence was 
committed on 30.11.1998 and the accused therein was found 
between the age group of 16 to 17 years i.e. below 18 years. 
C On these facts, this Court exa~mined the issue in the light of the 
proviso and explanation appended to Section 20 of the Juvenile 
Justice Act, 2000 by Amendment Act 33 of 2006 and laid down 
the following principles of law for deciding the issue of juvenility 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
in every case. 
16. It is aP,posite to reproduce Paras 38 and 39, 72 and 
73 of Hari Ram's Case (supra) which are given as under: 
"38. The same is, accordingly, reproduced 
hereinbelow: 
"20. Special provision in respect of pending 
cases.-Notwithstanding anything contained in 
this Act, all proceedings in respect of a juvenile 
pending in any court in any area on the date on 
which this Act comes into force in that area, shall 
be continued in that court a~ if this Act had not 
been passed and if the court finds that the 
juvenile has committed an offence, it shall record 
such finding and instead of
passing any 
sentence in respect of the juvenile, forward the 
juvenile to the Board which shall pass orders in 
respect of that juvenile in accordance with the 
provisions of this Act as if it had been satisfied 
on inquiry under this Act that a juvenile has 
committed the offence:
MOHD. FEROZ KHAN @FEROZ v. STATE OF A. P. 
153 
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.] 
Provided that the Board may, for any adequate A 
and special reason to be mentioned in the order, 
review the case and pass appropriate order in 
the interest of such juvenile. 
Explanation.-ln all pending cases including trial, 
revision, appeal or any other criminal 8 
proceedings in respect of a juvenile in conflict 
with law, in any court, the determination of 
juvenility of such a juvenile shall be in terms of 
tlause (/)of Section 2, even ifthe juvenile ceases 
to be so on or before the date of commencement C 
of this Act and the provisions of this Act shall 
apply as if the said provisions had been in force, 
for all purposes and at all material times when 
the alleged offence was committed." 
The proviso and the Explanation to Section 20 
were added by Amendment Act 33 of 2006, to set 
D 
at rest any doubts that may have arisen with 
regard to the applicability ofthe Juvenile Justice 
Act, 2000, to cases pending on 1-4-2001, where E 
a juvenile, who was below 18 years at the time of 
commission of the offence, was involved. 
39. The Explanation which was added in 2006, 
makes it very clear that in all pending cases, which 
would include not only trials but even subsequent F 
proceedings by way of revision or appeal, the 
determination of juvenility of a juvenile would be in 
terms of clause (/) of Section 2, even if the juvenile 
ceased to be a juvenile on or before 1-4-2001, when 
the
Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, came into force, and G 
the provisions of the Act would apply as if the said 
provision had been in force for all purposes and 
for all material times when the alleged offence was 
committed. In fact, Section 20 enables the court to 
consider and determine the juvenility of a person H
154 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 15S.C.R. 
even after conviction by the regular court and also 
empowers the court, while maintaining the 
conviction, to set aside the sentence imposed and 
forward the case to the Juvenile Justice Board 
concerned for passing sentence in accordance with 
the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000. 
72. We, therefore, allow the appeal and set aside 
the order passed by the High Court and in keeping 
with the provisions of Sections 2(k), 2(/), 7-A and 20 
of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000 and Rules 12 and 
98 of the Juvenile Justice Rules, 2007, hold that 
since the appellant was below 18 years of age at 
the time of commission of the offence the 
provisions of the said Act would apply in his case 
in full force. 
73. The matter is accordingly remitted to the 
Juvenile Justice Board, Ajmer, for disposal in 
accordance with law, within three months from the 
date of receipt of a copy of this order, having regard 
to the fact that the offence is alleged to have been 
committed more than ten years ago. If, however, the 
appellant has been in detention for a period which 
is more than the maximum period for which a 
juvenile may be confined to a special home, the 
Board shall release the appellant from custody 
forthwith." 
17. As mentioned above, we find no distinguishing 
features in the facts of the case in hand and the one involved 
in the case of Hari Ram (supra) so as to deny the relief to the 
G petitioner herein
because in this case also we find that the 
offence was committed on 02.08.1999 and the petitioner was 
found between the age group of 16-17 years i.e. below 18 
years on the date of commission of the offence. That apart, 
the question of juvenility of petitioner was not gone into till date 
H in accordance with law by any Court.

MOHD. FEROZ KHAN@ FEROZ v. STATE OF A. P. 
155 
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.] 
18. In the light of these facts emerging from the record of A 
the case which could not be controverted by the learned counsel 
for the respondent, we are of the considered view that the 
petitioner is entitled to claim the same relief as was granted in 
the case of Hari Ram (supra) by this Court. 
19. In view of the foregoing discussion, the petition 
B 
succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order in so far as it 
relates to the petitioner is set aside. The matter is remitted to 
the concerned Juvenile Justice Board exercising jurisdiction 
for disposal of the petitioner's case in accordance with law 
within three months from the date of receipt of copy of this C 
order. 
20. However, if the petitioner has been in detention for a 
period, which is more than the maximum period for which a 
juvenile may be confined to a special home, the Board shall 0 
release the petitioner from custody forthwith. 
Devika Gujral 
Appeal allowed.