IMPORTANT POINT
Even after disposal off cases of juveniles in conflict with law, the State Government or the Board could, either suo motu or on an application made for the purpose, review the case of juvenile, determine the juvenility and pass an appropriate order under Section 64 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 for immediate release of the juvenile whose period of detention had exceeded the maximum period provided in Section 15 of the Act i.e. 3 years.

JUDGMENT

P. Sathasivam, J. —

1) The petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of habeas corpus directing the respondents to release him from Central Jail, Agra forthwith as the detention is contrary to the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

2) The facts of the case are:

(a) On 01.05.1999, at about 8.30 p.m., one Santosh Kumar (since deceased) along with his servant was returning to his house with daily earning cash from his shop. When he reached near the hospital of Dr. Desh Pandey at Ahmednagar, two unknown persons came on a Motorcycle and demanded the money bag which was in his hand but he refused to give that bag. Thereafter, the pillion rider got down from the Motorcycle and threatened to kill him if the bag is not given and taken out a revolver which was kept underneath his shirt and fired which resulted in injury on his chest. In spite of the injury, the deceased ran towards his residence which was nearer to the scene of occurrence but dashed against the window and fell down. His relatives came out and took him to the Hospital where he was declared dead at about 9.05 p.m.

(b) A complaint was registered by the police bearing Crime Case No. I-96/1999 under Sections 307, 392, 341, 34, 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “the IPC”) and Sections 3, 5, 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959. The Investigating Officer arrested the accused persons namely, Balu Rangnath Chintamani, Vithal Ramayya Madur, Intekhab Alam Abdul Salam Sain and Amit Singh Thakur, the petitioner herein, and Sessions Case No. 150 of 1999 was registered against the said four accused in the Sessions Court, Ahmednagar.

(c) The Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar, vide order dated 16.04.2001 held all the four accused persons to be guilty of offences punishable under Sections 396, 506, 341, 379 read with Section 120-B of IPC and sentenced each of them to suffer life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.3000/- and also under Section 3 read with Section 25(1-B) and Section 5 read with Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 and sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs.3000/-.

(d) Against the said judgment, all the four accused filed appeals before the High Court. The High Court, by judgment dated 05.08.2005, allowed the appeals filed by A-2 and A-3 and dismissed the appeals filed by A-1 and A-4 (appellant herein).

(e) Challenging the said judgment of the High Court, the appellant filed Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 1114 of 2006 before this Court which was dismissed on 05.01.2007.

3) Heard Mr. Brijender Chahar, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Shankar Chillarge, learned counsel for the State-respondent No.1 and Mr. Ameet Singh, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

4) This writ petition is filed by the petitioner praying that he was a Juvenile at the time of the alleged offence and therefore, he could be tried only by the Juvenile Justice Board (in short ‘the Board’).

5) According to the petitioner, he had not completed 18 years of age as on the date of commission of the offence, i.e., 01.05.1999, though he had completed 18 years as on 01.04.2001 i.e. the date of implementation of the Act. According to amending Act 33/2006 in the Act, the benefit of juvenility shall be extended to the petitioner. It was further stated that he is entitled to get the benefit of the said law, which was after due consideration by this Court in the case of Hari Ram vs. State of Rajasthan and Others,1 (2009) 13 SCC 211 settled the position, whereby this Court gave effect to the Proviso and the Explanation to Sections 20 and 7A which were introduced by the above said Amending Act by applying the provisions of the Act with retrospective effect. Acco