Prabha Sridevan, J.

The father of the detenu – Ramajeyam, who has been lodged in the Central Prison, Madurai has filed this Habeas Corpus Petition on the ground that the detenu is entitled to the protection of The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 and therefore, the detention in prison is illegal.

2. The brief facts of the matter are as follows:-

The detenu was taken into judicial custody for the offences under Sections 147, 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C and lodged in prison along with four other adult accused. He was tried by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Madurai in S.C.No.104 of 1991 on 09.10.1991 and convicted for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C and sentenced to life imprisonment and also convicted under Section 147 I.P.C and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for one year. Against this, the detenu along with other accused preferred a Criminal Appeal in C.A.No.762 of 1991 before this Court and the same was dismissed on 21.12.2000.

3. The alleged occurrence took place on 15.07.1990 at 09.00 p.m., According to the petitioner, the detenu was aged only 17 years five months and four days as his date of birth is 11.02.1973. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that at the time when the detenu is alleged to have committed the offence, he had not completed 18 years of age and therefore, he was only a Juvenile in conflict with law and he should not have been tried along with the other adult accused. According to the learned counsel, the detenu is entitled to the protection of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as “the 2000 Act”). Learned counsel also submitted that the detenu has been detained in prison for eight years illegally and he must be released and set at liberty forthwith. Learned counsel further submitted that the beneficial provisions of Section 7, 7A and 18 of the 2000 Act should be invoked and the detention should be set aside. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied on the Judgment of the Supreme Court in PRATAP SINGH ..VS.. STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ANOTHER (2005 (3) SC.C. 551).

4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the other hand would submit that the detenu is not entitled to the protection of the 2000 Act since he was not a Juvenile when the 2000 Act came into force.

5. The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 came into force on 01.04.2001. As per the 2000 Act, the definition of “Juvenile” is as follows:-

“2(k) “juvenile” or “child” means a person who has not completed eighteenth year of age.

2 (l) “juvenile in conflict with law” means a juvenile who is alleged to have committed an offence and has not completed eighteenth year of age as on the date of commission of such offence.”

By Section 69 of the 2000 Act, the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as “the 1986 Act”) was repealed. As per the 1986 Act, the definition of “juvenile” is as follows:-

“2(h) “juvenile” means a boy who has not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who has not attained the age of eighteen years”.

By the Amendment Act 2006, Section 7-A was inserted. The following Sections of the 2000 Act are relevant for considering this Habeas Corpus Petition.

“3. Constitution of inquiry in respect of juvenile who has ceased to be a juvenile:- Where an inquiry has been initiated against a juvenile in conflict with law or a child in need of care and protection and during the course of such inquiry the juvenile or the child ceased to be such, then, notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in any other law for the time being in force, the inquiry may be continued and orders may be made in respect of such person as if such person had continued to be a juvenile or a child.”

“7-A. Procedure to be followed when claim of juvenility is raised before any Court:- (i) Whenever a claim of juvenility is raised before any Court or a Court is of the opinion that an accused person was a juvenile on th