JUDGMENT

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The controversy lies within a very narrow compass which relates to legality of the proceedings before the learned Sessions Judger Kurukshetra, in dealing with the present matter. According to the appellant, he was a Juvenile when the occurrence took place on 20/2/1996. The appellant was shown to have been arrested on 1/3/1996.

3. Relying on the certificate issued by the Central Board of Secondary Education it is contended that the appellant was born on 4. 5 .1980 ar1d on the date of incident he was below 16 years of age. On 5/6/1998, the appellant was convicted for life imprisonment and other terms between 7 and 10 years.

4. At the time of conviction the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘1986 Act’) was in operation. The 1986 Act was subsequently repealed by Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as ‘2000 Act’). On 22.8.2006 Section 2 (1) of the Act was amended stating that “Juvenile in conflict with lawn means juvenile who is alleged to have committed an offence and has not completed 18 years of age as on the date of commission of such offence. The Juvenile Ju