REPORTABLE

              IN THE SUPREME COURT OF  INDIA           CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION   

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 764  OF 2007

VIKRAM SINGH ..  APPELLANT

vs.

STATE OF HARYANA ..  RESPONDENT

J U D G M E N T

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT,J.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The controversy lies within a very narrow compass which relates to legality  

of the proceedings before the learned Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra, in dealing with the  

present matter.  According to the appellant,  he was a Juvenile when the occurrence  

took place on 20/2/1996.  The appellant was shown to have been arrested on 1/3/1996.  

Relying  on  the  certificate  issued  by  the  Central  Board  of  Secondary  

Education it is contended that the appellant was born on 4.5.1980 and on the date  of  

incident he was below 16 years of age.  On 5/6/1998,  the appellant was convicted for  

life imprisonment and other terms between 7 and 10 years.   

At the time of conviction the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred  

to as `1986 Act') was in operation.  

-2-

The 1986 Act was subsequently repealed by Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of  

Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as `2000 Act').  On 22.8.2006 Section 2 (l)  

of the Act was amended stating that  “Juvenile in conflict with  law”  means 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.  The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection  

of Children) Rules 2007 (hereinafter referred to as `2007 Rules') were brought into  

force on 26th October 2007.   

As per Rule 97(2)  all the cases pending which have not received a finality  

will  be  dealt  with   and disposed  of  in  terms  of  the  provisions  of  the  2000 Act  as  

amended on 22/8/2006 and 2007 Rules.  It appears that the High Court judgment is of  

26/5/2006 when the Rule 97 (2)  as applicable  was not in existence as it was brought  

into force in 2007 (i.e. 26th October, 2007).   

We are of the view that the appellant is  entitled to the benefit  under the  

provisions of 2000 Act as amended from 22.8.2006, and 2007 Rules.  Therefore while  

confirming the  

-3-

conviction,  considering the period of  custody already suffered by the appellant,  we  

direct that he shall be released from custody forthwith unless he is required in custody  

in any other case. Normally we would have remitted the matter to be dealt with by the

appropriate Court.  But considering the long passage of time and period of custody, we  

have passed the present order.

The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent.

                          ................ .J.               (Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)

     ...................J.                                         (ASOK KUMAR GANGULY) New Delhi, May 1, 2009.