Ranjana Desai, J.

1. Rule on the criminal application. By consent of the parties criminal application is taken up for hearing long with Criminal Appeal No.300 of 2007.

2. Gangaram Dushanna Dandil (appellant in appeal, hereinafter for convenience referred to as the applicant) is at present lodged in Kolhapur Central Prison. He was tried along with five others in Session Case No.680 of 2003 by 12th Ad. Hock Additional Sessions Judge at Sewri. By judgment and order dated 28th August, 2006 learned Sessions Judge convicted the applicant under Sections 395, 396 and 452 of Indian Penal Code (I.P.C for short). For offence under Section 452 of the I.P.C he was sentenced to suffer Regerous Imprisonment (R.I.) for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.3000/- and in default to suffer R.I for six months. For offence under Section 395 of the I.P.C the applicant was sentenced to suffer R.I for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.3000/- in default to suffer further R.I for six months. For offence under Section 396 of the I.P.C the applicant was sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and also to pay a fine of Rs.3000/-and in default to suffer further R.I for six months. Substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The appeal preferred by the applicant has been admitted by this Court.

3. The applicant preferred the instant application through jail, in which he stated that at the time when the offence was committed i.e., on 28th May, 2003 he was a juvenile. Along with this application he forwarded to this Court a bonafide certificate issued by the school where he was taking education and a Community and Nationality, date of birth certificate issued by Tahasildar, Dist: Adilabad. The applicant's case is that he was only 13 years of age when the offence was committed.

4. On 4th March 2009 the Division Bench of this Court directed that the applicant be got examined by medical board for ascertaining his age. After this order the applicant was examined by Civil Surgeon, Kolhapur. Ossification test was conducted on him by Dr. M.V. Phalke, Radiologist. He opined that the age of the applicant was between 19 and 20 years. Civil Surgeon, Kolhapur issued certificate dated 28th April, 2009 stating that the applicant is examined by him and that Dr. Phalke, Radiologist has opined that the applicant's age is between 19 and 20 years. Thus the Civil Surgeon and the Radiologist are unanimous on the age of the applicant. A copy of the said certificate is forwarded to the office of the Public Prosecutor, High Court, Bombay by Superintendent, Kolhapur Central Prison, Kalamba long with bone age evaluation of the applicant, vide letter dated 28th April, 2009. The said letter dated 28th April, 2009, along with certificate dated 28th April, 2009 and the bone age evaluation of the applicant are taken on record and marked “X” (colly).

5. Thus as on the date of the certificate i.e., on 28th March, 2009 the applicant was between 19 and 20 years of age. Undoubtedly therefore, when the offence was committed on 28th May, 2003 the applicant was a juvenile i.e., below 18 years of age. If the applicant was a juvenile when the offence was committed, he could not have been tried by learned Sessions Judge, Mumbai. The relevant provisions of law concerning juveniles to which we shall soon make a reference provide a procedure which had to be followed. The applicant is present in the Court. From his appearance itself we are convinced that he must have been a juvenile when he committed the offence.

6. The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2000 (J.J.Act 2000) was enacted by the Parliament inter alia to amend the law relating to juveniles by adopting a child friendly approach in the adjudication and disposition of matters in the best interest of children.

7. In Pratap Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr. A.I.R. 2005 SC 2731, the Supreme Court made it clear that the reckoning date for the determination of the age of the juvenile is the date of an offe