Holding

A claim of juvenility may be raised at any stage, and the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, as amended, applies retrospectively to pending cases, entitling a person who was a juvenile at the time of the offence to release if detention exceeds the statutory maximum.

Summary

Amit Singh was convicted of multiple offences, including murder, and sentenced to life imprisonment. He filed a writ petition under Article 32, claiming that he was a juvenile (under 18) at the time of the offence on 1 May 1999, based on his birth certificate and school records showing a birth date of 10 May 1982. The Court examined the applicability of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, as amended by the 2006 Amendment, which allows a claim of juvenility to be raised at any stage and applies retrospectively to pending cases. Relying on the provisions of Sections 2(1), 7A, 20 and 64 of the Act, and the supporting Rules, the Court held that Amit Singh was a juvenile at the time of the offence and therefore entitled to the Act's benefits. Since he had already served 12 years, exceeding the maximum three‑year confinement for a juvenile, the Court ordered his immediate release. The writ petition was consequently allowed.

Issues considered

The applicability of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, as amended, to a person convicted before the Act came into force but who was a juvenile at the time of the offence.
Whether a claim of juvenility can be raised after final conviction and whether the Act applies retrospectively to pending cases.
The appropriate procedure for determining juvenility under Section 7A and the consequent jurisdiction of the Juvenile Justice Board.
The entitlement to release under Section 64 when detention exceeds the maximum period prescribed for juveniles.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 21, s. Article 32
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000s. 15, s. 20, s. 2(1), s. 64, s. 7A
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007s. Rule 12, s. Rule 98

Subjects

juvenile justicejuvenility claimretrospective applicationlife imprisonmenthabeas corpusArticle 21Section 64maximum detention periodrelease

Judgment

[2011] 9 S.C.R. 890

A AMIT SINGH
v.
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.
(Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 16 of 2010)
AUGUST 08, 2011
B
[P. SATHASIVAM AND DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, JJ.]

JUVENILE JUSTICE (CARE AND PROTECTION OF
CHILDREN) ACT, 2000:
c
ss. 2(1), 7-A, 15, 20, Explanation (as amended by ,_
Amendment Act, 2006) and s. 64 read with s. 15 - Petitioner,
along with others, convicted and sentenced to imprisonment
for life u/ss 395, 120-B /PC etc. - Writ petition praying for
release of the petitioner in terms of the provisions of the Act
D
on the ground that he was below 18 years of age but on the
'
date of occurrence, i.e., 1.5.1999 - HELD: Explanation to s.
20 which was added in 2006 makes it clear that in all pending
cases, which would include not only trials but even
subsequent proceedings by way of revision or appeal, the
E
determination of juvenility of a juvenile would be in terms of
clause (/) of s.2, even if juvenile ceased to be a juvenile on
or before 01.04.2001, when the Act came into force and the ~
....
provisions of the Act would apply as if the said provision had
been in force for all purposes and for all material times when
F the alleged offence was committed - The petitioner was
juvenile at the time of commission of the offence and, as such,
entitled to the benefit of ss.2(1), 7-A, 20 and 64 of the Act -
The claim of juvenility can be raised before any court at any
stage, even after final disposal of the case - State
G Government or the Board could, either suo motu or on an
application made for the purpose, review the case of juvenile,
determine the juveni/ity and pass an appropriate order uls 64
of the Act for immediate re/ease of the juvenile whose period
of detention had exceeded the maximum period provided in
H 890
AMIT SINGH v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR. 891

s. 15 of the Act i.e. 3 years - As the petitioner has already A
undergone 12 years in jail, he is directed to be released
forthwith - Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children)
Rules, 2007 - rr. 12 and 98 - Constitution of India, 1950 -
Articles 32 and 21.
) , B
The petitioner along with others was convicted of
offences punishable ulss 396, 506, 341 379 read with s.
120-B IPC and was sentenced to imprisonment for life. He
filed the instant writ petition contending that his date of
birth was 10.5.1982 and, as such, on the date of
occurrence, i.e., 1.5.1999, when the offence took place, he C
was less than 18 years of age. He prayed for a writ in the
nature of habeas corpus directing the respondents to
release him from jail as his detention was contrary to
Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the provisions
of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) D
Act, 2000.
Allowing the writ petition, the Court
HELD: 1. In the Birth Certificate (Annexure-P1 ), the E
Transfer Certificate (Annexure-P2), and the mark sheet
issued by the Council for the Indian School Certificate
Examinations, the date of birth of the petitioner has been
recorded as 10.05.1982 and duly certified and
authenticated by the authorities concerned. In view of r. F
12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of
Children) Rules, 2000 all these documents are relevant
and admissible in evidence. Thus, on the date of the
incident which took place on 01.05.1999, the petitioner ·
was below 18 years, and, therefore, he was a juvenile in
terms of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of G
Children) Act, 2000 and, as such, is entitled to get the
benefit of provisions ulss. 2(1), 7A, 20 and 64 of the Act.
[para 11] [901-B-F]
Hari Ram vs. State of Rajasthan and Others 2009 H
892 SUPREME COURT REPORTS . [2011] 9 S.C.R.

A (7) SCR 623 = (2009) 13 SCC 211; and Shah Nawaz vs.
State of U.P. 2011 (8) JT 475 - relied on.

1.2 No doubt, the benefit was not claimed by the
petitioner earlier; neither the claim was raised before the
8 trial court nor thereafter up to this Court. The petitioner ' '
has substantiated that he was a juvenile as per the Act
and he could be tried only by the Board and, therefore,
the matter should be referred before the Board for trial. It
is further seen that the proceedings were started against
C him on 01.05.1989 before the regular court and during the
pendency of the trial, the Act was enacted and it is his
claim that inadvertently he was not advised that he is
entitled to get the benefit under the Act after the
enactment because he had already completed the age of
18 years as on 01.04.2001. It is relevant to point out that •
D the applicability of the Act was clarified by Amending Act
33/2006 which provided that the benefit of juvenility shall
be extended even to juvenile who had completed the age
of 18 years on 01.04.2001 and the Act shall have
retrospective effect. [para 8] [898-B-E]
E
Pratap Singh vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr., 2005 (1)
=
SCR 1019 (2005) 3 SCC 551 - referred to.

1.3 The Explanation to s. 20 which was added in 2006 ...
makes it clear that in all pending cases, which would
F include not only trials but even subsequent proceedings
by way of revision or appeal, the determination of
juvenility of a juvenile would be in terms of clause (I) of
s.2, even if juvenile ceased to be a juvenile on or before
01.04.2001, when the Act came into force and the
G provisions of the Act would apply as if the said provision
had been in force for all purposes and for all material
times when the alleged offence was committed. Section
20 enables the Court to consider and determine the
j1:1venility of a person even after conviction by the regular
H
AMIT SINGH v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR. 893

... court and also empowers the court, while maintaining the A
conviction, to set aside the sentence imposed and
forward the case to the Board concerned for passing
sentence in accordance with the provisions of the Act.
[para 9] [899-C-F]
B
) ' 1.4 It is clear from s. 7A that the claim of juvenility may
be raised before any court at any stage, even after final
disposal of the case and it sets out the procedure which
the court is required to adopt, when such claim of
juvenility is raised. Apart from the provisions of the Act
as amended, and the Rules, r. 98, in particular, has to be
c
read along with s. 20 of the Act as amended by the
Amendment Act, 2006 which provides that even after
disposal of cases of juveniles in conflict with law, the
,;
State Government or the Board could, either suo motu or
--#
on an application made for the purpose, review the case D
of juvenile, determine the juvenility and pass an
appropriate order u/s 64 of the Act for immediate release
of the juvenile whose period of detention had exceeded
the maximum period provided in s. 15 of the Act i.e. 3
years. It is specifically asserted that the petitioner has E
already undergone 12 years in jail, whiCh is more than the
maximum period for which a juvenile may be confined to
..l· a special home. In the circumstances, the petitioner is
I> directed to be released from the custody forthwith. [para
10-12) [900-F-H; 901-A, F-G] F

Case Law Reference:
2009 (7) SCR 623 relied on para 5
2005 (1) SCR 1019 referred to para 9 G
2011 (8) JT 475 relied on para 11
CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (Crl.)
No. 16 of 2010.
H
894 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 9 S.C.R.

A Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.
. .
Brijender Chahar, Saket Agarwal, Ashish Tayal, Vivek
Gupta for the Petitioner.
Shankar Chillarge, Praatik Bombarde, Asha Gopalan Nair,
B Ameet Singh, P. Swarup, Garvesh Kabra, Alka Sinha, Anuvrat '
Sharma for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

P. SATHASIVAM, J. 1. The petitioner has filed this writ
c petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India praying for
issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of habeas corpus
directing the respondents to release him from Central Jail, Agra
forthwith as the detention is contrary to the fundamental rights
guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the •
D Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children} Act, 2000
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'}.
2. The facts of the case are:

E (a} On 01.05.1999, at about 8.30 p.m., one Santosh Kumar
(since deceased} along with his servant was returning to his
house with daily earning cash from his shop. When he reached
near the hospital of Dr. Desh Pandey at Ahmednagar, two
unknown persons came on a Motorcycle and demanded the
~
..
money bag which was in his hand but he refused to give that
F
bag. Thereafter, the pillion rider got down from the Motorcycle
and threatened to kill him if the bag is not given and taken out
a revolver which was kept underneath his shirt and fired which
resulted in injury on his chest. In spite of the injury, the deceased
ran towards his residence which was nearer to the scene of
G occurrence but dashed against the window and fell down. His
relatives came out and took him to the Hospital where he was
declared dead at about 9.05 p.m.
(b} A complaint was registered by the police bearing
H Crime Case No. 1-96/1999 under Sections 307, 392, 341, 34,
AMIT SINGH v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR. 895
[P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
.._ .,
506 read with 34 of the -Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter A
referred to as "the IPC") and Sections 3, 5, 25 and 27 of the
Arms Act, 1959. The Investigating Officer arrested the accused
persons namely, Balu Rarignath Chintamani, Vithal Ramayya
Madur, lntekhab Alam Abdul Salam Sain and Amit Singh
)
" Thakur, the petitioner herein, and Sessions Case No. 150 of B
1999 was registered against the said four accused in the
Sessions Court, Ahmednagar.

(c) The Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar, vide
order dated 16.04.2001 held all the four accused persons to
be guilty of offences punishable under Sections 396, 506, 341,
c
379 read with Section 120-B of IPC and sentenced each of
them to suffer life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.3000/
- and also under Section 3 read with Section 25(1-B) and
"
• Section 5 read with Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 and
sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and D
to pay a fine of Rs.3000/-.

(d) Against the said judgment, all the four accused filed
appeals before the High Court. The High Court, by judgment
dated 05.08.2005, allowed the appeals filed by A-2 and A-3 E
and dismissed the appeals filed by A-1 and A-4 (appellant
herein) .
,.,JIO
.1
(e) Challenging the said judgment of the High Court, the
appellant filed Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 1114 of 2006
F
before this Court which was dismissed on 05.01.2007.

3. Heard Mr. Brijender Chahar, learned senior counsel for
the petitioner and Mr. Shankar Chillarge, learned counsel for
the State-respondent No.1 and Mr. Ameet Singh, learned
counsel for respondent No.2 . G
...
4. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner praying that ·
he was a Juvenile at the time of the alleged offence and
therefore, he could be tried only by the Juvenile Justice Board
(in short 'the Board'). H
896 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 9 S.C.R.
• A

A 5. According to the petitioner, he had not completed 18
years of age as on the date of commission of the offence, i.e.,
01.05.1999, though he had completed 18 years as on
01.04.2001 i.e. the date of implementation of the Act.
According to amending Act 33/2006 in the Act, the benefit of , ~
B juvenility shall be extended to the petitioner. It was further stated
that he is entitled to get the benefit of the said law, which was
after due consideration by this Court in the case of Hari Ram
vs. State of Rajasthan and Others, (2009) 13 SCC 211 settled
the position, whereby this Court gave effect to the Proviso and
c the Explanation to Sections 20 and 7A which were introduced
by the above said Amending Act by applying the provisions of
the Act with retrospective effect. Accordingly, it is prayed that
the petitioner is entitled to get the benefit of the Act, even after
final conviction.
•
D 6. We have already adverted to in the earlier paras
regarding the petitioner's involvement in the criminal charges
framed against him and the orders of conviction imposed. From
the materials, it is seen that the petitioner Amit Singh s/o late
Bhikamsingh Thakur was born on 10.05.1982 in Jhansi, U.P.
E and his date of birth is registered with the Registrar, Births and
Death, Nagar Palika Parishad, Jhansi. According to the record
of Nagar Palika Parishad, Jhansi, the date of birth certificate
• ...
of the petitioner is recorded as 10.05.1982 bearing registration
No. 1184/97 dated 04.08.1997. The petitioner has produced
F a copy of birth certificate (Annexure-P1) issued by the
Registrar, Nagar Palika Parishad, Jhansi. A perusal of the birth
certificate issued by the competent authority clearly shows that
his date of birth is 10.05.1982.

G
7. Further information from the materials placed shows that
the petitioner started his studies from St. Mark's College, Jhansi ..
w.e.f. 12.06.1985.. He left the school on 27.05.1996 and
obtained a Transfer Certificate mentioning that his date of birth
is recorded as 10.05.1982 in the admission register of the
school. Transfer Certificate dated 14.06.1997 issued by the
H
898 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 9 S.C.R.

A to life imprisonment with fine of Rs.3,000/-. Though the above ' A

said conviction and sentence was confirmed by this Court, vide
its impugned judgment and order dated 05.01.2007, the age
of the petitioner and the benefit of the Act was not considered
by this Court. No doubt, this plea and the benefit was not
B claimed by the petitioner earlier neither the same was raised ' .
before the trial Court nor thereafter up to this Court. We have
already observed that from the materials placed, the petitioner
had substantiated that he was a juvenile as per the Act and he
could be tried only by the Board and hence the matter should
c be referred before the Board for trial. It is further seen that the
proceedings were started against him on 01.05.1989 before
the regular Court and during the pendency of the trial, the Act
was enacted and it is his claim that inadvertently he was not
advised that he is entitled to get the benefit under the Act after .
l
the enactment because he had already completed the age of '
D
18 years as on 01.04.2001. It is relevant to point out that the
applicability of the Act was clarified by Amending Act 33/2006
which provided that the benefit of juvenility shall be extended
even to juvenile who had completed the age of 18 years on
01.04.2001 and the Act shall have retrospective effect.
E
9. The relief prayed for in this writ petition is squarely
covered by the law laid down in the case of Hari Ram (supra)
whereby this Court had occasion to consider the question •
elaborately regarding applicability of the Act. This Court
F considered the decision of the Constitution Bench in the case
of Pratap Singh vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr., (2005) 3 SCC
551, wherein this Court formulated two points for consideration:
A. Whether the date of occurrence will be the
reckoning date for determining the age of the
G
alleged offender as juvenile offender or the date
.. when he is produced in the Court/Competent •
Authority?
B. Whether the Act of 2000 will be applicable in the
H case a proceeding is initiated under the 1986 Act
AMIT SINGH v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR. 899
[P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
... ..... and pending when the Act of 2000 was enforced
-
A
with effect from 01.04.2001?

The Constitution Bench in the above case held that the benefit
of juvenility cannot be extended to the person who has
completed the 18 years of age as on 01.04.2001 i.e. the date
B
of enforcement of the Act. In the background of this judgment,
the Legislature brought Amendment Act 33/2006 proviso and
explanation in Section 20 to set at rest doubts that have arisen
with regard to the applicability of the Act to the cases pending
on 01.04.2001, where a juvenile, who was below 18 years of
age at the time of commission of the offence, was involved. The c
explanation to Section 20 which was added in 2006 makes it
clear that in all pending cases, which would include not only
trials but even subsequent proceedings by way of revision or
'· appeal, the determination of juvenility of a juvenile would be in
. ,.
terms of clause (I) of Section 2, even if juvenile ceased to be a D
<t juvenile on or before 01.04.2001, when the Act came into force
and the provisions of the Act would apply as if the said provision
had been in force for all purposes and for all material times
when the alleged offence was committed. Section 20 enables
the Court to consider and determine the juvenility of a person E
even after conviction by the regular court and also empowers
the court, while maintaining the conviction, to set aside the
_, .. sentence imposed and forward the case to the Board
concerned for passing sentence in accordance with· the
provisions of the Act. F
10. After the judgment of the Constitution Bench in Pratap
Singh (supra), this Court in the case of Hari Ram (supra)
--<
considered the above question of law in the light of Amendment
-l' Act 33 of 2006 in the provisions of the Act which substituted
G
Section 2(1) to define a "juvenile in conflict with law" as a
"juvenile who is alleged to have committed an offence and has
not completed 18 years of age as on the date of commission
of such offence". By way of Amendment Act 33/2006, Section
7A was inserted which reads as follows:-
H
900 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011J 9 S.C.R.

A "7 A. Procedure to be followed when claim of y ,

juvenility is raised before any court.-(1) 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
the date of commission of the offence, the court shall make
B an inquiry, take such evidence as may be necessary (but
not an affidavit) so as to determine the age of such person,
and shall record a finding whether the person is a juvenile
or a child or not, stating his age as nearly as may be:

Provided that a claim of juvenility may be raised
c before any court and it shall be recognized at any stage,
even after final disposal of the case, and such claim shall
be determined in terms of the provisions contained in this
Act and the rules made thereunder, even if the juvenile has
ceased to be so on or before the date of commencement
D of this Act.
(2) If the court finds a person to be a juvenile on the date
of commission of the offence under sub-section (1 ), it shall
forward the juvenile to the Board for passing appropriate
E orders and the sentence, if any, passed by a court shall
be deemed to have no effect."

It is clear from the above provision, namely, Section 7A the
claim of juvenility to be raised before any court at any stage, ' ._
even after final disposal of the case and sets out the procedure
F which the court is required to adopt, when such claim of
juvenility is raised. Apart from the aforesaid provisions of the
Act as amended, and the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection
of Children) Rules, 2007, (in short 'the Rules') Rule 98, in
particular, has to be read along with Section 20 of the Act as
G amended by the Amendment Act, 2006 which provides that
even after disposal of cases of juveniles in conflict with law, the
State Government or the Board could, either suo motu or on
an application made for the purpose, review the case of
juvenile, determine the juvenility and pass an appropriate order
H under Section 64 of the Act for immediate release of the
AMIT SINGH v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR. 901
[P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
·"--"I
juvenile whose period of detention had exceeded the maximum A
period provided in Section 15 of the Act i.e. 3 years. All the
above relevant provisions including the amended provisions of
the Act and the Rules have been elaborately considered by this
;.
Court in Hari Ram (supra).
B
11. We have already referred to the entry relating to the
date of birth of the petitioner in the Birth Certificate (Annexure-
P1), entry relating to his date of birth in the Transfer Certificate
(Annexure-P2), date of birth recorded in the mark sheet issued
by the Council for the Indian School Certificate Examinations.
In all these documents, his date of birth has been recorded as c
10.05.1982 and duly certified and authenticated by the
authorities concerned. In a recent decision of this Court dated
05.08.2011 in Criminal Appeal No. 1531 of 2011 arising out
of •SLP (Criminal) No. 3361 of 2011, Shah Nawaz vs. State of
U.P. while considering similar documents, namely, certificate · D
issued by the School Authorities and basing reliance on Rule
12 of the Rules held that all those documents are relevant and
admissible in evidence. Inasmuch as the date of birth of the
petitioner is 10.05.1982 and on the date of the alleged incident
which took place on 01.05.1999, his age was 16 years, 11 E
months and 21 days i.e. below 18 years, hence on the date of
J
the incident, the petitioner was a juvenile in terms of the Act
-# because he had not completed 18 years of age and is entitled
to get the benefit of provisions under Sections 2(1), 7A, 20 and
64 of the Act. It is also specifically asserted that the petitioner F
had already undergone 12 years in jail since then which is more
than the maximum period for which a juvenile may be confined
to a special home.
12. Under these circumstances, the petitioner is directed
G
to be released from the custody forthwith. The writ petition is
allowed.
R.P. Writ Petition allowed.

H