(S. C. Dharmadhikari, J.)

In this Criminal Appeal, on 30-11-2009, this Court while noting the argument of the Appellant's Advocate and particularly that the Appellant/Accused was a juvenile in conflict with law had not completed 18 years of age as on the date of the commission of the offence, directed that an inquiry be conducted by the Children's Court at Panaji as to whether the Appellant was a juvenile on the date of the commission of the offence. This Court observed that although the claim was raised during the trial before the trial Court no inquiry was conducted. Therefore, the inquiry be now held and the records and proceedings be sent back to this Court along with the report of the inquiry. The Court directed that the inquiry be completed within three months from the date of communication of the Order.

2. Accordingly, the inquiry has been held and the President, Children's Court of the State of Goa by his Order dated 5-3-2010 held that the Appellant/Accused was about 18 years of age as on the date of the commission of the offence.

3. The records were thus forwarded to this Court with the report and when the Criminal Appeal was placed for hearing and final disposal, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant submitted that the Appellant is desirous of impugning and challenging the findings recorded by the Children's Court in its Order dated 5-3-2010. Accordingly, by an Order passed on 31-3-2011, we permitted the learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant to amend the Memo of Appeal and incorporate therein additional grounds to challenge this Order/Report. The Memo of Appeal has been amended.

4. In all fairness, the learned Public Prosecutor did not oppose the amendment and submitted that since the Criminal Appeal is still pending, the Appellant may be given an opportunity as desired by him.

5. Both the learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant as well as Shri C. A. Ferreira, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that since extensive arguments have been canvassed in relation to the findings in the report of the Children's Court of Goa, this Court before proceeding with the hearing of the appeal, may render a finding on the conclusions recorded in the report.

6. Accordingly, we have heard Shri J. A. Lobo, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant and Shri C. A. Ferreira, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. With their assistance, we have perused the statements recorded by the Children's Court during the course of the inquiry and its final conclusions as set out in the report dated 5-3-2010.

7. It is submitted by the learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant that the Appellant's case throughout was that he was a juvenile in conflict with law. That his date of birth is 12-7-1987 and the date of the offence is 7-3-2004. Therefore, he had not completed 18 years of age as on the date of commission of the offence. He was therefore a “juvenile” and a “juvenile in conflict with law”. Inviting our attention to the definition of these terms appearing in Section 2(k) and (l) of the Juvenile Justice(Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, it is submitted that the inquiry that is contemplated and provided in Section 7A of the Act is to determine as to whether the claim of juvenility has been substantiated or not. It is submitted that Section 7A has been inserted by Act 33 of 2006 with some specific purpose. The Legislature has provided that when the claim is raised, the Court shall make an inquiry by taking such evidence as may be necessary(but not on affidavit) so as to determine the age of the person and shall record a finding whether the person is a juvenile or not stating his age. It is submitted that the trial Court and the President of the Children's Court has in a cursory manner rejected the claim and without bearing in mind the object and purpose, for which the provision is incorporated in the statute. He submits that the order of this Court issued clear directions and the inquiry that