- (1.) LEAVE granted.
(2.) APPELLANT was prosecuted for commission of an offence under Section 302 of the India Penal Code. The occurrence took place on 20th April, 1998. He was arrested on the charge of murder of one Ramu Maistry on 8th May, 1998. Upon completion of investigation a charge sheet was filed against him on 30th November, 1998. The learned trial court delivered a judgment on 28th April, 2000. In the said judgment his age was shown to be '18'. An application was filed for sending him to Borstal School in terms of Section 10-A of the Tamil Nadu Borstal Schools Act, which was refused. An appeal preferred by the appellant before the High Court has been dismissed by reason of the impugned judgment. This Court issued a limited notice as to whether the appellant was a juvenile on the date of occurrence of the incident. Mr. Mukherjee, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, submitted that in view of the materials placed on records, an inquiry should have been initiated as regards the age of the appellant. The Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" was applicable when the incident took place, In terms whereof, a juvenile, under Section 2 (h) was defined as a boy who has not attained the age of 16 years.
(3.) THE Parliament, however, enacted, the Juvenile Justice (Care and protection of Children) Act, 2000. It came into force with effect from 1st april, 2001. Section 2 (k) defines 'juvenile' to mean a person who has not completed eighteen years of age.;