JUDGMENT : P. N. PRAKASH, J. The petitioner P. Ekamparam is seeking the benefits of the Juvenile Justice [Care and Protection of Children] Act, 2000 for his son E. Manikandan, the detenu herein, who is now undergoing life imprisonment. 2. The detenu, Manikandan, in this case was tried with 3 others in SC.No.218/2005 by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chengalpattu and was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment for offence under S. 302 read with 34, IPC on 05.02.2007. His appeal in Cri.A.No.396/2007 was dismissed by this Court on 04.02.2008, thereby the conviction and sentence imposed upon him by the trial Court was confirmed. 3. The offence is said to have occurred on 10.06.2004. It is the case of the detenu that his date of birth is 20.05.1987 and therefore, he was a juvenile as on 10.06.2004 and hence, he would be entitled to the benefits of the Juvenile Justice [Care and Protection of Children] Act, 2000. By order dated 29.01.2013, this Court directed the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chengalpattu to conduct an enquiry and determine the age of the detenu as on the date of occurrence and submit a report to this Court. Accordingly, the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chengalpattu, had conducted an enquiry and had submitted a report dated 12.03.2013. In his report, the learned Judge has given a finding that the date of birth of the detenu is 20.05.1987 and as on 10.06.2004 [date of commission of the offence], the detenu was 17 years and 21 days and that he had not completed 18 years of age. 4. On perusal of the report we found that the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chengalpattu had not conducted the enquiry properly and therefore, by our order dated 09.01.2014, we directed the Juvenile Justice Board, [in short 'JJ Board] Chengalpattu to conduct an enquiry, to determine the age of the detenu, as on the date of the commission of the offence. Accordingly, the JJ Board, Chengalpattu conducted the enquiry and has submitted a report dated 28.03.2014. The JJ Board had directed the Probation Officer, Kancheepuram to verify the details furnished by the parents of the detenu from the Birth Registers maintained in the Taluk Office. Accordingly, the JJ Board, Chengalpattu conducted the enquiry and has submitted a report dated 28.03.2014. The JJ Board had directed the Probation Officer, Kancheepuram to verify the details furnished by the parents of the detenu from the Birth Registers maintained in the Taluk Office. The report of the Probation Officer shows that there is an entry in the Birth Register maintained in the Taluk Office, Uthiramerur, from where the detenu hails, wherein the names of the parents Ekambaram and Tamilselvi is entered in page 2, Sl.No.11, Melapakkam village. The birth certificate shows the date of birth as 20.05.1987. The JJ Board had also perused the 8th standard mark sheet of the detenu, which shows the date of birth 19.05.1988. The entry in the mark sheet was based on the Birth Certificate that was obtained by the parents in the year 2012 by resorting to the procedure under the Registration of Births and Deaths Act. The detenu was not educated by his parents and he had pursued his studies only in the prison. Therefore, the date of birth given in the mark sheet is not supported by any material. The JJ Board has conducted the enquiry in terms of Rule 8-B of the Tamil Nadu Juvenile Justice [Care and Protection of Children] Rules, 2001, wherein, primacy is given to date of Birth Certificate issued by the competent authority and only if there is no such certificate, entry in the school records would assume significance. Relying upon the Birth Certificate issued by the Uthiramerur Taluk Office, the JJ Board has determined the date of birth of the detenu as 20.05.1987 and has given a finding that the detenu was 17 years and one month as on 10.06.2004, the date of commission of offence in Pallikaranai Police Station Cr.No.310/2004. 5. We carefully perused the report of the JJ Board, Chengalpattu and we do not find any infirmity in it and therefore, we hold that the detenu was 17 years and one month as on 10.06.2004, the date of the commission of the offence in Pallikaranai Police Station Cr.No.310/2004 and therefore, he would be entitled to the benefits under the JJ Act. 6. The next question that we require to answer is that should we direct his release just like that from the prison? 6. The next question that we require to answer is that should we direct his release just like that from the prison? Under Section 3 of the JJ Act, 2000, the inquiry initiated against the juvenile who is in conflict with law can proceed even after he ceases to be a juvenile and in the event of the JJ Board holding that he has committed an offence, orders can be passed only under Section 15 of the Act. In a case of this nature where the detenu is now 27 years old, no order under Section 15(g) directing the juvenile to be sent to Special Home for a period of three months can be passed. However, other orders under Section 15 like counselling the detenu, directing him to perform community service etc. can be passed by the JJ Board. As far as the State of Tamil Nadu is concerned, after the judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court in Idukkan v. the Inspector of Police [2014 (4) CTC 718] the State of Tamil Nadu acted with alacrity and constituted JJ Boards in all the Districts in the State. The JJ Board members were also given special training by the Tamil Nadu State Judicial Academy as required by the Rules. In Ashwant Kumar Saxena v. State of Madhya Pradesh [ AIR 2013 SC 553 ] case cited supra, the Hon’ble Supreme Court after holding that the accused therein was a juvenile as on the date of commission of offence, quashed the sentence and sent the case records to the concerned JJ Board for passing suitable orders. We follow the same and we hereby quash the sentence imposed on Manikandan in S.C.No.218 of 2005 dated 05.02.2007 and as confirmed by this Court by judgment dated 04.02.2008 in Cri.A.No.396 of 2007. We direct that the detenu Manikandan be produced before the JJ Board, Chengalpattu, for passing appropriate orders, immediately. Accordingly, this Habeas Corpus Petition is disposed of. Order accordingly.