JUDGMENT S. PANDA, J. : This application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed by the petitioner for grant of anticipatory bail. 2. The petitioner is allegedly involved in Nimapara P.S.Case No. 114 of 2005 corresponding to G.R.Case No. 443 of 2005 pending in the Court of the J.M.F.C., Nimapara, for commis¬sion of offences under Sections 379 and 411 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Perused the case diary and the materials available on record. It appears from the record that the petitioner is aged about 19 years when the application under Section 438, Cr.P.C. was filed. The alleged occurrence took place on 12.8.2005. It is revealed from the records that the date of birth of the petition¬er is 01.07.1988. Thus, on the date of the alleged occurrence, the age of the petitioner was about 17 years and therefore, prima facie, it appears that he was a juvenile who is alleged to have committed offence. 4. Section 2 (k) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) defines that “juvenile” or “child” means a person who has not completed eighteenth year of age. Section 2 (1) of the Act defines that “juvenile is conflict with law” means a juvenile who is alleged to have committed an offence. Section 3 of the Act provides as under : “3. Continuation of inquiry in respect of juvenile who has ceased to be a juvenile - Where an inquiry has been initiated against a juvenile in conflict with law or a child in need of care and protection and during the course of such inquiry the juvenile or the child ceases to be such, then, notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in any other law for the time being in force, the inquiry may be continued and orders may be made in respect of such person as if such person had continued to be a juvenile or a child.” From the above, it can be noticed that when a juvenile is produced before the competent authority and/or Court, he has not committed any offence which he has been found to have committed. 5. The whole object of the Act is to provide for care, protection, treatment, development and rehabilitation of neglected or delinquent juveniles. 5. The whole object of the Act is to provide for care, protection, treatment, development and rehabilitation of neglected or delinquent juveniles. It is a beneficial legislation aimed at making available the benefit of the Act to the neglected or delinquent juveniles. It is the settled law that the interpre¬tation of the Statute of beneficial legislation must be to advance the cause of the legislation for the benefit of whom it is made and not to frustrate the intendment of the legislation. Therefore, whether at the time of commission of offence the petitioner was a juvenile or not, cannot be determined by this Court without any inquiry. Hence, this application for grant of anticipatory bail is not entertained. 6. In the case of Pratap Singh v. State of Jharkhand and another reported in (2005) 3 SCC 551 , it has been held by the Apex Court that the reckoning 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. 7. In view of the above position of law, this application for grant of anticipatory bail is disposed of with the direction to the investigating agency that they shall produce the petitioner before the competent authority who will pass necessary orders in accordance the Act. Order accordingly.