JUDGMENT :- This appeal is filed by the appellant Alex Fernandes/A-1 against Judgment dated 21-7-2005 by which he has been convicted and sentenced under Section• 392, I.P.C. 2. The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 came into force w.e.f. 1-4-2001. Section 2(k) defines “Juvenile" or "child" to mean a person who has not completed 18 years of age. As per the charge-sheet, the appellant/A-I was born on 24-6-1983 and as such would have ceased to be a juvenile on 24-6-2001. The offence took place on 14-6-2001 at a time when the appellant/A-l was a juvenile. 3. The Apex Court in Pratap Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand and Anr. (2005)3 SCC 551 : 2005 ALL MR (Cri) 2258 (S.C), by majority, has held that the date for the determination of the age of the juvenile is the date of the offence and not the date when he is produced before the authority or in the Court. The appellant/A-1 therefore had to be tried as a juvenile, being a person in conflict with law by the Juvenile Justice Board as established by Section 4 of the said Act. The appellant/A-1 could not have been tried by the Court of Sessions, as rightly contended on his behalf by learned Counsel. The trial and consequently the conviction and sentence imposed by the appellant/A-1 is without jurisdiction and therefore has got to be set aside. 4. Hence, the appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant/ A-1 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is hereby set aside. The prosecution is at liberty to file a separate charge-sheet/report against the appellant/A-1 before the Juvenile Justice Board as contemplated by the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. The learned Public Prosecutor undertakes to convey this order to the Investigating Officer as well as to the Officer-in-Charge of concerned Police Station for doing needful in the matter. Expedite authenticated copy of the order be given to the learned Public Prosecutor. Appeal allowed.