The Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case ABC v. State of Haryana observed and has stated that the plea of juvenility can be raised by a person even after case is disposed of in terms of conviction and sentence and as per the petition, the authorities shall be bound for conducting an age determination inquiry. In the present case, the court was dealing with a plea filed by the person who had committed an offence at the age of a little over 16 years in the year 1995. Therefore, a male was considered to be a juvenile as per the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 till the age of 16 years and female to be a juvenile till the age of 18 years, which was being raised to the age of 18 years for males through the Juvenile Justice (the Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. However, the petitioner in the case was convicted and sentenced in 2012 for offences committed in 1995 under Section 148, Section 302, Section 307, Section 323 and Section 364 of the IPC and moved the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, wherein seeking order for inquiry to determine his age as contemplated under the 2000 Act. It has also been contended by the petitioner that even though on the date of the alleged occurrence of the crime, his age was 16 years, 03 months and 25 days (the age stated is not being the age of juvenility as per the 1986 Act) and the enactment of 2000 had come into force at the time the pendency of the trial. Further, it has been contended before the court by the petitioner in the plea that the petitioner was being arrested in 2011 and thereafter his trial commenced and he was convicted and sentenced in 2012, on all of which dates, as per the enactement of 2000, he being a juvenile. It has also been argued by him before the court that he had to be given the benefit of juvenility under Section 20 of the 2000 Act. On the other hand, it has been argued by the State that since the plea of juvenility was never raised by the petitioner either before the Trial Court or the High Court at any point of time during appeal, the petitioner was rightly dealt with as a convict. The bench comprising of Justice Harinder Singh Sidhu and Justice Lalit Batra stated that it has been provided under Section 7-A of Act, 2000 that claim of juvenility can be raised before any Court, at any stage, even after the case is finally disposed of and if the Court finds a person to be a juvenile on the date of commission of the offence, the same is said to be forwarded the juvenile to the Board for passing appropriate orders, and the sentence, if any, passed by a Court, shall be deemed to have no effect. In the said case, even though the offence may have been committed before the enactment of the Act, 2000, the petitioner is entitled under Section 7-A of the Act to the benefit of juvenility, 2000 and if on inquiry, if it is being found that the petitioner was less than 18 years of age on the date of the alleged offence. However, the plea filed was allowed by the High Court and directed the Sessions Court, Mewat at Nuh to examine the claim of juvenility raised by the petitioner and a report is to be submitted before the High Court within a period of one month. Adding to it, the court stated that the session court shall be entitled to examine the authenticity and genuineness of the documents sought to be relied upon by the petitioner and in the event where the documents are found to be questionable, the same will be open to the Sessions Court to have the petitioner medically examined by taking an ossification test or any other modern recognized method for the age determination.