JUDGMENT 1. - In the above-noted appeal, the appellant-applicant (Banti @ Shoyab) has challenged the judgment and order dated 13th August, 2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 2, Kota convicting him for offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. and hence, sentencing him to life imprisonment, as well as imposing a fine of Rs. 5,000/-; in default of payment of fine, directing him to further undergo two months simple imprisonment. He has also been convicted for offence under Section 4/25 of the Arms Act and has been sentenced to two months simple imprisonment and imposed with a fine of Rs. 5,000/-; in default of payment of fine, to further undergo fifteen days simple imprisonment. 2. An application has been preferred on behalf of the appellant under Section 15 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 2000', for short), with a prayer for his release forthwith since he has undergone more than the maximum period of incarceration for which the juvenile may be sent to a special home i.e., a period of three years. 3. On 21st January, 2013 when the matter came up before this Court, an order was passed, which reads thus:- "Learned counsel for appellant has filed an application under Section 6(2), 7(A) and 15 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 and submits that on the date of alleged incident i.e. 21st May, 2008, the applicant was juvenile, as opined by the Medical Board in its report dated 19th August, 2011 and is entitled to seek protection of the provisions of Act 2000 and treating him to be a juvenile and taking note of the fact that he has served the sentence which could be awarded to him, he is entitled to be released forthwith. Learned counsel further submits that it is true that he faced regular trial for the alleged incident dated 21st May, 2008 and no objection was raised during trial claiming to be a juvenile but that can be raised at any stage of the case even after being convicted by the competent court of jurisdiction. Learned counsel further submits that it is true that he faced regular trial for the alleged incident dated 21st May, 2008 and no objection was raised during trial claiming to be a juvenile but that can be raised at any stage of the case even after being convicted by the competent court of jurisdiction. Counsel further submits that after the Medical Board expressed its opinion that he was juvenile on the date of incident, at least that can be taken note of by the court for passing appropriate orders providing him protection as envisaged under the provisions of the Act 2000 while treating him as juvenile. He has also got his date of birth registered as per Birth and Death Registration Act, 1969 on 11th January, 2013, copy whereof has been placed on record and in support placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court reported in Mohan Mali & Anr. v. State of M.P., 2010 RCC (SC) 319 . Learned Public Prosecutor has not filed any formal reply to the application, however, submits that no such objection was raised while he was facing regular trial and so-called birth certificate, which is annexed with the application, has been issued at a much later date after the date of alleged incident and as regards the report furnished by the Medical Board, it was not constituted under the directions of the court, as such, unless the matter is inquired upon by the competent court, the report of the Medical Board could not be taken note of in isolation holding him juvenile on the date of alleged incident i.e. 21st May, 2008 and submits that the application filed at such a belated stage by the appellant deserves to be dismissed. This court took note of the submissions made by the parties and also the material placed on record. It reveals that during pendency of proceedings before the trial court, no such objection was raised by the accused appellant, therefore, there is no evidence oral or documentary so led by either parties for examining the age of accused appellant by the learned trial court. It reveals that during pendency of proceedings before the trial court, no such objection was raised by the accused appellant, therefore, there is no evidence oral or documentary so led by either parties for examining the age of accused appellant by the learned trial court. As regards, the birth certificate, which has been placed on record it was registered on 11th January, 2013 much after the occurrence of alleged incident and as regards the opinion of Medical Board, it was not constituted under the directions of the court for examining the age of accused appellant but this fact cannot be ruled out that in view of Section 20 of the Act 2000, the same are mandatory and being a beneficial piece of legislation, the application can certainly be moved at any stage of the case even after conviction by the competent court of jurisdiction. In these facts and circumstances and taking note of the facts stated above, we are of the view that the matter be sent to learned trial court for holding enquiry and recording the finding in respect of date of birth of the accused appellant Bunti alias Shoyab on the date of incident and the parties be allowed to lead evidence in support of their contentions. The learned trial court may record its finding in this regard and is further expected that enquiry be expedited and the report be sent to this court within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order and record. However, it is made clear that the learned trial court may examine the record independently without being influenced by the observations made hereinabove. The Registry is directed to send original record alongwith copy of this order to the learned trial court for doing the needful. The learned trial court shall send report to this court soon after the completion of enquiry. Both the parties are directed to appear before the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 2, Kota on 18th February, 2013. The application, in above terms, stands disposed of." 4. The learned trial court shall send report to this court soon after the completion of enquiry. Both the parties are directed to appear before the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 2, Kota on 18th February, 2013. The application, in above terms, stands disposed of." 4. In pursuance of the directions aforesaid and the order dated 7th March, 2013, the Court of Additional Sessions Judge No. 5, Kota, has returned a finding to the effect that the appellant applicant (Banti @ Shoyab) was below the age of 18 years and his age was not in any case more than 17 years on the date of incident i.e. 21.5.2008 and therefore, was a 'juvenile' or 'child' as defined under Section 2(k) of the Act of 2000. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant-applicant urged that the appellant-applicant, although a juvenile within the meaning of Section 2(k) of the Act of 2000, was tried along with the co-accused, who was not a juvenile contrary to the mandate of Section 18 of the Act of 2000 and by now, has also undergone the imprisonment much more than the maximum of 3 years, which could have been imposed on him under Section 15 of the Act of 2000. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant-applicant placed reliance on the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Mohan Mali & Anr. v. State of M.P., 2010(1) WLC (SC) Cri. 713 : 2010 R.C.C (SC) 319 , 7. The learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, opposed the prayer, reiterating the stand while contesting the earlier application decided vide order dated 21st January, 2013 (supra), submitted that no such plea was raised on behalf of the appellant-applicant during his trial and therefore, the application now preferred pleading the appellant-applicant being a juvenile, merits rejection at the very threshold. 8. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant-applicant and the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the material available on record. 9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while examining the Scheme of the Act of 2000 in case of Mohan Lal Mali (supra) held thus:- "8. 8. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant-applicant and the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the material available on record. 9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while examining the Scheme of the Act of 2000 in case of Mohan Lal Mali (supra) held thus:- "8. In the facts,of this case, we are faced with a situation where the juvenile, Dhanna Lal, had already been tried along with adults and had been convicted under Sections 304/34, 326/34 and 324/34 IPC and was sentenced to life imprisonment, out of which he had already undergone about 9 years of the sentence. Rule 98 of the 2007 Rules, in our view, squarely applied to Appellant No. 2 Dhanna Lal's case. His case is to be considered not only for grant of bail, but also for release. In terms of the said Rule, since he has completed more than the maximum period of sentence as provided under Section 15 of the 2000 Act. 9. The legal position has been clearly explained in Hari Ram's case (supra) and does not, therefore, require any further elucidation in this case. 10. Having regard to the fact that the Appellant No. 2, Dhanna Lal, was a minor on the date of commission of the offence, and has already undergone more than the maximum sentence provided under Section 15 of the 2000 Act, by applying the provisions of Rule 98 of the 2007 Rules read with Sections 15 and 64 of the 2000 Act, we allow the appeal as far as he is concerned and direct that he be released forthwith. The application filed on his behalf is also disposed of, accordingly." 10. The learned Court of Sessions Judge No. 5, Kota after having conducted a detailed inquiry has concluded vide order dated 27th July, 2013 that the appellant-applicant was a juvenile as defined under Section 2(k) of the Act of 2000 as he did not complete 18 years of age. The inquiry report has been placed along with the application. 11. The learned Court of Sessions Judge No. 5, Kota after having conducted a detailed inquiry has concluded vide order dated 27th July, 2013 that the appellant-applicant was a juvenile as defined under Section 2(k) of the Act of 2000 as he did not complete 18 years of age. The inquiry report has been placed along with the application. 11. Having regard to the fact that the appellant-applicant (Banti @ Shoyab) was a minor on the date of commission of the offence and has already undergone more than the maximum sentence as provided under Section 15 of the Act of 2000 and keeping in view of the provisions of Rule 98 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 read with Section 15 and 64 of the Act of 2000, we are inclined to grant the prayer of the appellant-applicant and order for his release forthwith. Ordered accordingly.Order passed as above. *******