Judgment :-

Altamas Kabir, J.

1.1. Leave granted.

2.2. This appeal raises certain questions which are fundamental to the understanding and implementation of the objects for which the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the `Juvenile Justice Act, 2000) was enacted. The said law which was enacted to deal with offences committed by juveniles, in a manner which was meant to be different from the law applicable to adults, is yet to be fully appreciated by those who have been entrusted with the responsibility of enforcing the same, possibly on account of their inability to adapt to a system which, while having the trappings of the general criminal law, is, however, different therefrom. The very scheme of the aforesaid Act is rehabilitatory in nature and not adversarial which the courts are generally used to. The implementation of the said law, therefore, requires a complete change in the mind-set of those who are vested with the authority of enforcing the same, without which it will be almost impossible to achieve the objects of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000.

3.3. The appellant, Hari Ram, was arrested along with several others on 30.11.1998, for the alleged commission of offences under Sections 148, 302, 149, Section 325 read with Section 149 and Section 323/149 Indian Penal Code. After the case was committed for trial, the Additional Sessions Judge, Didwana, by his order dated 3rd April, 2000, in Sessions Case No.54 of 1999 determined the age of the accused to be below 16 years on the date of commission of the offence and after declaring him to be a juvenile, directed that he be tried by the Juvenile Justice Board, Ajmer, Rajasthan.

4. This appeal has been filed against the common order dated 7th December, 2005, passed by the Jodhpur Bench of the Rajasthan High Court in Crl. Revision Petition

No.165 of 2000, filed by the Respondent No.2 herein and in Crl. Revision Petition No.199 of 2005 filed by the appellant, also being aggrieved by the said common order. While Crl. Revision No.199 filed by the appellant herein challenging the framing of charges was dismissed, Crl. Revision No.165 filed by the State of Rajasthan was allowed holding that the appellant was not a juvenile and the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, were not, therefore, applicable to him.

4.5. According to the appellants father, the appellants date of birth is Kartik Sudi 1, Samvat Year 2039, which is equivalent to 17th October, 1982, whereas the offence was alleged to have been committed on 30th October, 1998, which mathematically indicates that at the time of commission of the offence, the appellant had completed 16 years and 13 days and was, therefore, excluded from the scope and operation of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000. Furthermore, the medical examination conducted in respect of the appellant by a Medical Board indicated that his age at the relevant time was between 16 and 17 years. After considering the various decisions of this Court indicating the manner in which the age of a juvenile is to be determined, the High Court observed that the inescapable conclusion which could be arrived at is that on the date of the incident, the accused-appellant herein was above 16 years of age and was, therefore, not governed by the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the `1986 Act).

5.6. It is the said order of the High Court which has been impugned in this appeal.

6.7. Appearing for the appellant, Mr. Sushil Kumar Jain, learned Advocate, submitted that the High Court had acted in a highly technical manner in holding that the appellant was not a juvenile and had in the process defeated the very object of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, which is aimed at rehabilitating juvenile offenders in order to bring them back to main-stream society and to give them an opportunity to rehabilitate themselves as useful citizens of the future. In fact, the definition of "juvenile" in the 1