As per case facts, an FIR was lodged against the appellant for poisoning the deceased, leading to his arrest. The learned CJM initially assessed his age as around 18 years. ... Subsequently, a petition was filed claiming he was a minor at the time of the offence, leading the Juvenile Court to assess his age between 15 and 16 years based on appearance and later finding him below 16 based on school certificates, resulting in his release on bail. The informant appealed, arguing that the date of production before the court, not the date of occurrence, was relevant for determining juvenility. The High Court affirmed this view, leading to the current appeal. The question arose whether the date of occurrence or the date of production before the court is the reckoning date for determining an alleged offender's age as a juvenile, and whether the Juvenile Justice Act of 2000 applies to proceedings initiated under the 1986 Act and pending when the 2000 Act came into force. Finally, the Supreme Court held that the date of occurrence is the correct reckoning date for determining juvenility, not the date of production before the court. The Court also clarified that the Juvenile Justice Act of 2000 is applicable to pending proceedings initiated under the 1986 Act, provided the person had not completed 18 years of age when the 2000 Act came into force.