JUDGMENT

Lalit Batra, J.

This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been moved by petitioner-Azad @ Ismail seeking order for inquiry to determine his age for declaring him "juvenile in conflict with the law", in case FIR No.898 dated 15.12.2014 under Sections 120-B, 326-A and 452 IPC, registered at Police Station Palam Vihar, Gurgaon.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has inter alia contended that in case FIR No.898 dated 15.12.2014, as detailed above, petitioner was held guilty, convicted and sentenced for the commission of aforesaid offences, vide judgment of conviction dated 30.01.2017 and order on quantum of sentence dated 08.02.2017 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon. He further contended that appeal (CRA-D-860-DB-2017) preferred by petitioner against his conviction and sentence, was dismissed by this Court, vide judgment dated 28.05.2019. He further contended that no appeal was preferred by the petitioner against judgment dated 28.05.2019.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that incident had occurred on 15.12.2014, whereas date of birth of petitioner is 21.06.1998, therefore, at the time of commission of offence, he was aged 16 years, 05 months and 25 days and, thus, at the relevant time, he was below the age of 18 years and was a 'juvenile'. He further contended that though at the time of filing the aforesaid appeal, petitioner had disclosed to his counsel that he was juvenile at the time of commission of offence and further 'School Leaving Certificate' dated 19.08.2015 (Annexure P-2) issued by Principal, Jamia Anvarul Huda, Kotkadar, District Bijnor and 'Birth Certificate' dated 29.05.2017 (Annexure P-3) issued by CMS Public Service Centre, Bijnor, were annexed with the appeal, however, no such issue has either been raised or adjudicated by the Court. He further urged that aforesaid documents are admissible in law and are sufficient to show that petitioner was a juvenile in conflict with the law on the date of incident, however, due to ignorance of law, the plea of juvenility could not be raised before the Trial Court.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that when the offence was committed the provisions of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter to be referred as 'Act, 2000'), were in force. He further contended that by virtue of provisions of Act, 2000, age of juvenility was up-to 18 years and as such Juvenile Justice Board constituted under Section 4 of said Act, has jurisdiction to try a juvenile in conflict with the law.

He further contended that under Section 7 -A of Act, 2000, an accused is entitled to raise a claim of juvenility before any Court, even after the final disposal of the case and to this effect reliance has been placed upon rulings Ashok v. State of Madhya Pradesh , Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No.643 of 2020 decided on 29.11.2021 , Sanjay Patel & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh , 2022 AIR (Supreme Court) 1852 and Vinod Katara v. State of Uttar Pradesh , Writ Petition (Criminal) No.121 of 2022 decided on 12.09.2022 by Hon'ble Supreme Court. He further contended that such a claim is required to be determined in accordance with the provisions of Act, 2000.

Learned counsel for petitioner further contended that Section 7 - A of the Act, 2000 read with Rule 12 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 (hereinafter to be referred as 'Rules, 2007'), contemplates inquiry, therefore, petitioner is seeking age determina