1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY:
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
Criminal Writ Petition No.407 of 2009 [decided]
Gurumukhsingh son of
Bahadursingh Tak [in Jail],
Central Prison,
Amravati. .... Petitioner.
Versus
1. State of Maharashtra,
through Secretary,
Home Department,
Mantralaya,
Mumbai-32.
2. Police Sub-Inspector,
Wadegaon Police Station,
Yavatmal.
3. Superintendent,
District Prison,
Yavatmal.
4. Superintendent,
Central Prison,
Amravati.
5. Superintendent,
Central Prison,
Nagpur. .... Respondents.
*****
Mr. R.A. Jaiswal, Adv., for the petitioner.
Mr. T.A. Mirza, Addl. Public Prosecutor for
respondents.
*****
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:39:03 :::
2
CORAM : A.H. JOSHI AND
P.B. VARALE,JJ.
Date : 26th November, 2010.
ORAL JUDGMENT [Per A.H. Joshi, J.]:
1. This Court had disposed of Criminal Writ Petition
No. 407 of 2009 on 9th December, 2009. By order passed today,
we have recalled said judgment, and taken up present
Criminal Writ Petition for hearing and disposal according to
law.
2. Learned Adv., for the petitioner has argued that
the petitioner was a juvenile on the date of occurrence of
crime, and by virtue of Section 7-A of the Juvenile Justice
(Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, he needs a
differential treatment even after the conviction attains
finality.
3. In support of his submissions, learned Adv., for
the petitioner has placed reliance on following Judgments:-
[I] Dharambir Vs. State of [NCT of Delhi] & another
[(2010 5 SCC 344],
[II] Ganesh Ramjivan Kaithwas Vs. State of Mah. &
another [Criminal Writ Petition No. 31/2010,
decided on 28th July, 2010] [Coram A.P. Lavande
& P.D. Kode, JJ.], and
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 16:39:03 :::
3
[III] Sunil Laxman Jawade Vs. State of Mah. & another
[Criminal Writ Petition No. 509 of 2010,
decided on 25th November, 2010], [Coram : A.H.
Joshi & A.R. Joshi, JJ.].
4. We are satisfied that in view of Section 7-A of the
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act,
2000, that it shall be open to the Court, who has passed the
order of conviction and sentence, if an application is made
by the convict, to decide the age based on the correct date
of birth, and record a finding whether the convict-
petitioner was a juvenile on the date of commission of
offence. If the finding is in favour of the claim of the
convict-petitioner, the Court will be within its
jurisdiction to pass orders in accordance with law.
5. We need to record that learned APP does not dispute
the legal position that the jurisdiction under Section 7-A
of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children)
Act, 2000, applies equally to the Court passing the order of
conviction.
6. In view of foregoing discussion, petitioner should
better file an application within fifteen days from today
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 16:39:03 :::
4
before the Sessions Court concerned who has passed the order
of conviction and sentence. The Sessions Judge, to whom the
enquiry be allotted, shall have to decide the application
when filed in accordance with Section 7-A of the Juvenile
Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000.
7. Learned Adv., for the petitioner states that the
application shall be filed in the Sessions Court within
fifteen days from today.
8. We
direct learned APP to communicate to the
District Govt. Pleader to appear in the matter on 20th
December, 2010, for taking further steps, if copy of
application, which may be filed by the applicant, is
delivered to learned District Govt. Pleader.
9. We hope and expect that the question of age of the
applicant, i.e., he being a juvenile as per the provisions
of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children)
Act, 2000, be decided by Sessions Court, as far as
possible, within ninety days from the date of appearance.
10. Rule is made absolute in terms of foregoing Para
Nos. 6 to 8.
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 16:39:03 :::
5
Hamdast of this Writ of this Court is allowed.
JUDGE JUDGE
-0-0-0-0-
|hedau|
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:39:03 :::