JUDGMENT

Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J.—

The only point urged in support of the appeal is that the appellant was minor within the meaning of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (in short “2000 Act”). Reference is also made to the amendment of the expression “juvenile in conflict with law” in terms of Section 2(l) as amended by Act 33 of 2006 with effect from 22.8.2006. Reference is also made to the explanation appended to Section 20 by the said amendment. It is the stand of the appellant that on the date of occurrence he was minor as his date of birth is 6.3.1973.

2. Learned counsel for the respondent states that this plea was not raised either before the trial court or before the High Court by the appellant. The question about the applicability of 2000 Act and the amendment thereto has to be tested on the basis of the evidence. Though certain documents have been filed to substantiate their stand that the appellant was a minor on the date of occurrence i.e. on 15.6.1990, the applicability of the amended provisions have to be considered. In the peculiar facts of this case, we set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and remit the matter to the trial co