Raju Rama Naik v. The State of Maharashtra
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Judgment
Heard learned counsel for the parties. By this writ petition the petitioner is claiming benefits of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Amendment Act, 2006 claiming to be a juvenile. He claims that he was born on 4.3.1990. He has placed the study certificate dated 21.6.2002 on record issued by M.P.U.P. School, R. B. Vanka, Rayadurgam Mandal, District Anantpur (Andhra Pradesh) in support of 2 his claim. On the other hand, the learned A.P.P., has placed on record the report dated 17.3.2010 of the Senior Police Inspector, Chembur Police Station, Mumbai stating that the certificate of the petitioner dated
21.6.2002 annexed to the application, showing 4.3.1990 as his birth date, is false and fabricated. Learned A.P.P., has also placed on record the true and genuine birth certificate of the petitioner, which shows
12.1.1984 as his correct date of birth. This has not been disputed by the learned Advocate for the petitioner. In view thereof the writ petition is dismissed. The office to communicate this order to the concerned prisoner in due course. ( A.R.JOSHI,J)
( D.B. BHOSALE,J)
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Amendment Act, 2006.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 17 Mar 2010.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.