Judgment :-

D.K. JAIN, J.

Leave granted.

2. Challenge in this appeal, by special leave, is to the judgment, dated 1st December 2009, delivered by the High Court of Calcutta in C.R.A. No. 77 of 1986, upholding the conviction of the appellant for an offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short "IPC").

3. Since learned counsel for the appellant has addressed us only on the question of applicability of the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (for short "the 2000 Act") to the facts of the case, we deem it unnecessary to state the facts, leading to the filing of this appeal, except to the extent that the incident, resulting in injuries to the victim took place on 6th March 1983. The first information report (for short "the FIR") was lodged and registered on 21st March, 1983 against the appellant and four other persons. Chargesheet was filed on 13th June 1983 against all the accused; who were tried for offences under Sections 306 and 148 of the IPC and ultimately, vide judgment dated 22nd February 1986, the Additional Sessions Judge, convicted the appellant for an offence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC and acquitted the other four accused. The appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- with default stipulation.

4. Aggrieved by the order of conviction, the appellant carried the matter in appeal before the High Court. As afore-stated, the High Court, vide the impugned judgment has dismissed the appeal.

5. Hence, the present appeal.

6. Vide order dated 22nd October 2010, this Court had directed the respondent-State to make inquiry so as to determine the age of the appellant. Pursuant thereto, affidavit dated 9th November 2010, has been filed by a Sub-Inspector of Police, Birbhum (West Bengal), on behalf of the State, stating that as per the records available with the Board of Secondary Education (West Bengal), the date of birth of the accused is 4th January 1968, which shows that the age of the appellant as on the date of commission of offence i.e. 6th March 1983, was 15 years, 2 months and 2 days.

7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

8. It is well settled that the date relevant for determining the age of the accused, who claims to be a juvenile/child would be the date on which the offence had been committed and not the date on which he is produced before the competent authority or in the court. (See: Pratap Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr. ((2005) 3 SCC 551) and Ravinder Singh Gorkhi Vs. State of U.P. ((2006) 5 SCC 584))

9. In Pratap Singh's case (supra), the Constitution Bench also dealt with the question as to whether the 2000 Act will be applicable in a case where criminal proceedings were initiated when the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 (for short "the 1986 Act") was in force. Taking into consideration the provisions of Sections 3 and 20 along with the definition of the term "juvenile" in Section 2(k) of the 2000 Act, as contrasted with the definition of a "male juvenile" in Section 2(h) of the 1986 Act, by majority, it was held that the 2000 Act would be applicable in a proceeding pending in any court/authority initiated under the 1986 Act and which was pending when the 2000 Act came into force and the person concerned had not completed 18 years of age as on 1-4-2001. In other words, it was held that a male offender, against whom proceedings had been initiated under the 1986 Act in any court/authority and who had not completed the age of 18 years as on 1-4-2001, would be governed by the provisions of the 2000 Act.

10. The decision in Pratap Singh's case (supra) led to substitution of Section 2(l); the insertion of Section 7A and proviso and the Explanation to Section 20 of the 2000 Act by Act 33 of 2006 as also introduction of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 containing Rule 12, which lays down the procedure to be followed i