This criminal revision application is filed, challenging the judgment and order dated 21st February, 2000, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Latur, dismissing the appeal No. 32/91 filed by the present applicant.

2. Background facts of the present case are as under:-

3. It was alleged that the applicant secured admission in polytechnic college at Nasik by securing a false caste certificate showing that he belongs to Lingdhar scheduled category and the respondent No. 2 had helped him in securing the said certificate.

4. The present applicant and respondent No. 2 were convicted for the offence stated therein. The applicant filed an appeal No. 32/91 before the Sessions Court, Latur, challenging the conviction. On 21.2.2000 the Additional Sessions Judge, Latur, dismissed the appeal filed by the applicant. Hence, this criminal revision application.

5. This application was heard by this Court on 13.3.2000 and was pleased to issue rule and interim relief as prayed. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant prayed to recall the sentence imposed upon him in Criminal Appeal No. 32/91 by the order dated 21st February, 2000 on the ground that he was juvenile in conflict with law on the date of the offence, and therefore, considering the provisions of law, comprised under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, read with Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, he could not have been sentenced and he should have been produced before the Board in terms of provisions of law for necessary order in terms of section 15 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant would submit that the birth date of the present applicant is 5.6.1964. The age of the applicant on the date of commission of offence was 15 and half years. He further submitted that the ground was raised before the lower appellate Court in respect of juvenility of the applicant at the time of commission of the offence. The appellate Court has not accepted the point of juvenility of the applicant though all the dates are admitted. The appellate Court has held that the alleged certificate was used on 27.8.1980. According to the learned Judge, if the age is calculated, definitely the applicant was 16 years and some months, thereby he was not juvenile, in any case he was below 17 years. He further submits that the present revision application is pending before this Court for final hearing. The point of juvenility was already raised in the revision memo in ground No. 7 and ground No. 11. He further submits that on the basis of admitted date even if it is accepted that the age of the applicant on the date of commission of offence was 16 years and some months, it is below 17 years and therefore, the applicant is entitled for benefit of provisions of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 and Amended Act, 2006. He further submits that taking in to consideration the various provision of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, which were not sufficient to extend the benefit to juvenile. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court issued several directions for amending the Juvenile Justice Act and therefore, Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 was amended and by amendment section 7(A) was introduced as well as section 20 explanation was added.

7. Hefurther submits that the applicant has ceased to be juvenile on or before the commencement

.of the Act, as per section 7(A), the benefit of the Act of 2006 is to be made applicable to his case. As per section 20 explanation, the date of the offence though important, the definition in clause (1) and section (2) is important. In view of the amended provision juvenile means the person who is below the age of 18 years or who has not completed the age of 18 years on the date of commission of offence. If the act is made retrospective and the age of the applicant is considered below 1