Judgment : This criminal revision application is filed, challenging the judgment and order dated 21st February, 2000, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Latur, dismissing the appeal No. 32/91 filed by the present applicant. 2. Background facts of the present case are as under:- 3. It was alleged that the applicant secured admission in polytechnic college at Nasik by securing a false caste certificate showing that he belongs to Lingdhar scheduled category and the respondent No. 2 had helped him in securing the said certificate. 4. The present applicant and respondent No. 2 were convicted for the offence stated therein. The applicant filed an appeal No. 32/91 before the Sessions Court, Latur, challenging the conviction. On 21.2.2000 the Additional Sessions Judge, Latur, dismissed the appeal filed by the applicant. Hence, this criminal revision application. 5. This application was heard by this Court on 13.3.2000 and was pleased to issue rule and interim relief as prayed. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant prayed to recall the sentence imposed upon him in Criminal Appeal No. 32/91 by the order dated 21st February, 2000 on the ground that he was juvenile in conflict with law on the date of the offence, and therefore, considering the provisions of law, comprised under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, read with Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, he could not have been sentenced and he should have been produced before the Board in terms of provisions of law for necessary order in terms of section 15 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant would submit that the birth date of the present applicant is 5.6.1964. The age of the applicant on the date of commission of offence was 15 and half years. He further submitted that the ground was raised before the lower appellate Court in respect of juvenility of the applicant at the time of commission of the offence. The appellate Court has not accepted the point of juvenility of the applicant though all the dates are admitted. The appellate Court has held that the alleged certificate was used on 27.8.1980. According to the learned Judge, if the age is calculated, definitely the applicant was 16 years and some months, thereby he was not juvenile, in any case he was below 17 years. The appellate Court has held that the alleged certificate was used on 27.8.1980. According to the learned Judge, if the age is calculated, definitely the applicant was 16 years and some months, thereby he was not juvenile, in any case he was below 17 years. He further submits that the present revision application is pending before this Court for final hearing. The point of juvenility was already raised in the revision memo in ground No. 7 and ground No. 11. He further submits that on the basis of admitted date even if it is accepted that the age of the applicant on the date of commission of offence was 16 years and some months, it is below 17 years and therefore, the applicant is entitled for benefit of provisions of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 and Amended Act, 2006. He further submits that taking in to consideration the various provision of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, which were not sufficient to extend the benefit to juvenile. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court issued several directions for amending the Juvenile Justice Act and therefore, Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 was amended and by amendment section 7(A) was introduced as well as section 20 explanation was added. 7. Hefurther submits that the applicant has ceased to be juvenile on or before the commencement .of the Act, as per section 7(A), the benefit of the Act of 2006 is to be made applicable to his case. As per section 20 explanation, the date of the offence though important, the definition in clause (1) and section (2) is important. In view of the amended provision juvenile means the person who is below the age of 18 years or who has not completed the age of 18 years on the date of commission of offence. If the act is made retrospective and the age of the applicant is considered below 17 years and therefore, no punishment can be imposed on the applicant. For this point, the learned counsel relied on the judgment of this Court in the case of Saheb Sopan Kale Vs. the State of Maharashtra, reported in (2008 (2) B.C.R. (Cri) 494). If the act is made retrospective and the age of the applicant is considered below 17 years and therefore, no punishment can be imposed on the applicant. For this point, the learned counsel relied on the judgment of this Court in the case of Saheb Sopan Kale Vs. the State of Maharashtra, reported in (2008 (2) B.C.R. (Cri) 494). Therefore, the learned counsel further submits that in view of the law laid down by this Court in above referred judgment, the present case is covered, therefore, the benefit should be given to the applicant. 8. The learned A.P.P. fairly conceded that the case of the applicant is covered under the above mentioned judgment of this Court. 9. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the applicant and learned A.P.P. for the State and I am of the considered view that the case in hand is covered by the judgment of this Court in the case of Saheb Sopan Kale Vs. the State of Maharashtra reported in (2008 (2) B.C.R. (Cri.) 494). In para 9 of the said judgment, this Court has observed thus:- .Since the record clearly establishes that the applicant was below the age of 17 years on the date of commission of offence i.e. 15th May, 1997, obviously he would be entitled for the benefit of provision of law comprised under section 7(A) of the Juvenile Act in terms of sub-section 2 thereby the order of sentence imposed upon the applicant has to be declared to be null and void. 10. In the present case, it is admitted position that the applicant on the date of commission of offence was below 17 years. Obviously, he would be entitled for the benefit of the provisions of law comprised under section 7(A) of the Act in terms of sub-section 2 the order and the sentence imposed upon the applicant has to be declared as null and void. On the date of commission of offence, the applicant was below the age of 17 years. He was "juvenile in conflict with law" and therefore, considering the provisions of section 7(A), sub-section 2 of the Juvenile Act, the sentence imposed upon him by the J.M.F.C., Udgir in Criminal Case No. 81/1982 by order dated 22.7.1991 which came to be confirmed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Latur in appeal No. 32/91 dated 21.2.2000 in respect of accused is quashed and set aside. The order of sentence imposed upon the applicant is declared as null and void. It is made clear that the sentence is quashed and set aside in the peculiar facts of the present case since the applicant was juvenile on the date of commission of offence. 11. Inthe facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find that any purpose would be served in issuing direction for production of the applicant before the Board since the learned counsel for the The applicant was chargesheeted by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Udgir under sections 420, 465, 471 along with another accused Deelip Gaikwad. applicant has informed that he has already undergone one week sentence. In the result, the application succeeds. Same is allowed in above terms.