A. Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (56 of 2000), Section 7A, 14(1), 15, 49 – Juvenility claimed in SLP – On directions learned Special Judge hold enquiry under Section 7A of the JJ Act --  Reliance upon the matriculation certificate issued by the Bihar School Examination Board, age comes to 17 years when the offence in question was allegedly committed by him – Claim of juvenility could be raised before any court and at any stage -- Convict ‘B’ declared juvenile on the date of offence -- Ordinarily juvenile was required to be dealt with by the Juvenile Justice Board for carrying out necessary inquiry in terms of Section 14 of the JJ Act and thereafter to pass order under Section 15 including an order directing the juvenile to be sent to a special home for a period of 3 years – Now more than four decades have passed by since commission of the offence -- It is neither possible nor feasible to remand the case of appellant No. 3 to the concerned Juvenile Justice Board to carry out the exercise under Sections 14 and 15 of the JJ Act -- Judgment and order of the trial court as affirmed by the High Court qua appellant no. 3 set aside on the ground of juvenility.

(Para 19-23)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 313 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 420, 440, 468, 471, 120B – Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (2 of 1947), Section 5(2), 5(1)(d) –  Non-compliance of Section 313 of Cr.P.C. – Acquittal -- Four questions generally were put to the appellants in a most mechanical manner -- These questions did not reflect the specific prosecution evidence which came on record qua the appellants -- As all the incriminating evidence were not put to the notice of the appellants, therefore, there was a clear breach of Section 313 CrPC as well as the principle of audi alteram partem -- Certainly, this caused serious prejudice to the appellants to put forth their case – Such omission is a serious irregularity has completely vitiated the trial -- Allegedly offence committed was from September, 1982 to December, 1982 -- Trial was concluded on 29.05.2006 -- At this distant point of time, instead of aiding the cause of justice, it will lead to miscarriage of justice if the case remanded to the trial court to restart the trial from the stage of recording the statements of the accused persons u/s 313 CrPC -- Appellants held entitled to the benefit of doubt – Conviction and sentence set aside.

(Para 35-39)