ORDER :

1. In this Special Leave Petition, while ordering notice on 20th January, 2014, such notice was confined to the question as to whether the petitioner was a juvenile at the time of the commission of the offence. By our subsequent order dated 2nd July, 2014, after hearing learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondent-State, we directed the Additional Sessions Judge, Dausa Camp, Jaipur to hold an inquiry to find out as to whether the petitioner was a juvenile on the date of the commission of the offence i.e. 20th January, 1985. The learned Sessions Judge was directed to give an opportunity to the petitioner to produce all requisite materials in support of the claim that he was a juvenile on the date of the occurrence and also to call for necessary documents from school authorities for ascertaining the said question.

2. Pursuant to our order, the learned Sessions Judge after holding an inquiry has submitted his Report dated 16th October, 2014. After detailed reference to the various materials placed before him, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dausa Camp, Jaipur, Rajasthan has submitted as under :-

"It is, therefore, having determined the age of petitioner/accused Mahesh Jogi son of Parasram, Caste-Jogi, resident of Bagwada, Police Station-Aamer, District-Jaipur(Raj.) order is passed that in Session Case No. 18/86(58/85) titled State v. Mahesh, the age of petitioner/accused on the date of commission of offence i.e. 20.01.1985 was about 17 years 04 months, meaning thereby that he had attained the age of 16 years and therefore he is not a juvenile delinquent."

[underlying is ours]

3. Leave granted.

4. Having perused the Report of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, we find that the appellant was about 17 years and 4 months as on the date of the occurrence namely 20th January, 1985. The conclusion of the learned Additional Sessions Judge that since accused-appellant was above 16 years of age he was not a juvenile is not correct. This Court has held in a number of decisions as to what would be the effect of the Juvenile Justice(Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 2000']. The age of a juvenile has been amended by which the age which was prescribed as 16 years to be a juvenile was revised as 18 years under the Act of 2000.

5. A question arose as to when conviction came to be imposed on an accused, prior to the coming into force of the Act of 2000, and a claim as to his status as a juvenile at the subsequent stages as to whether the protection or the benefits can be made available to him as a juvenile by virtue of the coming into force of the Act of 2000. In the decision reported in Hariram v. State of Rajasthan, (2009)13 SCC 193, it was ultimately held:-

".....a juvenile who had not completed eighteeen years on the date of commission of the offence was also entitled to the benefits of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, as if the provisions of Section 2(k) had always been in existence even during the operation of the 1986 Act."

6. The said judgment was subsequently followed in the decisions reported in Ajay Kumar v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2010)15 SCC 83, Abuzar Hussain @ Gulzar Hossain v. State of West Bengal, (2012) 10 SCC 489, Jitendra Singh alias Babboo Singh and another v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2013) 11 SCC 193 andYakub Abdul Razak Memon v. State of Maharashtra, 2013(13) SCC 1. One of us, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla, in the judgment reported in JT (2014) 9 SC 243 titled Hakkim v. State represented through Deputy Superintendent of Police had occasion to follow the above said principle while dealing with a convict in Criminal Appeal No. 1410 of 2009(one of the three appeals). Therefore, after the coming into force of the Act of 2000, a juvenile who had not completed 18 years of age on the date of the commission of the offence was entitled to the benefits of the said Act.

7. Keeping the above legal principle consistently held by this Court i