Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 73 (BOM)

Anil s/o Suresh Adakmol v. State of Maharashtra

2012-01-11

A.H.JOSHI, U.D.SALVI

body2012
JUDGMENT A.H. Joshi, J.: 1. Heard learned Advocate for the applicant and the learned APP for the respondent State. 2. Leave to substitute the prayer clause (B) is granted. Amendment be carried out forthwith. 3. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and taken for final disposal with the consent of learned Advocates for the parties. 4. After the conviction has attained finality, the applicant the convict has moved this Court by present application. He claims that on the date of incident, he was juvenile. He has relied upon evidence in the form of birth certificate and school leaving certificate. 5. We had directed an inquiry by order dated 14.6.2012. The findings of inquiry are received. We had also called for the record. The findings of the inquiry are in favour of the applicant. It is held that on the date of the incident, the applicant was juvenile. The date of birth relied upon by him is proved to be factually same. 6. By order dated 12.10.2012, we had put the learned APP to notice as to whether the State has any objection on the finding recorded by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalgaon, in his judgment and order dated 7.8.2012 where the finding as to the applicant's date of birth to be 1.6.1982, is recorded. 7. The learned APP states that instructions to challenge the said judgment are not received. On the other hand, the Police Inspector of Zilla Peth Police Station, Jalgaon, has by letter dated 14.5.2012 communicated that the date of birth claimed by the applicant is crosschecked and found to be correct. 8. In view of this fact of the matter, the applicant is proved to be juvenile on the date of commission of the offence. 9. Considering the mandatory provision contained in the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, and the law in the form of binding precedents as recently reiterated by the Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No.1193/1996 between Abuzar Hossain @ Gulam Hossain V/s State of West Bengal, decided on 10.10.2012, that even if the conviction attains finality, the question as to status of juvenile requires to be adjudicated. 10. Upon adjudication in favour of the applicant, he is entitled for the benefit thereof. We hold and declare that the conviction and sentence against the applicant requires to be set apart and the applicant is entitled to be released at once. 11. 10. Upon adjudication in favour of the applicant, he is entitled for the benefit thereof. We hold and declare that the conviction and sentence against the applicant requires to be set apart and the applicant is entitled to be released at once. 11. We, therefore, allow this application in terms of amended prayer clause (B). Rule is made absolute accordingly.