Zaki Ullah Khan, J.@mdashHeard learned Counsel for the Union of India-revisionist, learned Counsel for opposite party and perused the relevant
record. The instant revision has been preferred u/s 53 of Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2000 against the order dated 11th
November 2009 passed by the Sessions Judge, Lucknow in Criminal Appeal No. 313 of 2009 (Union of India v. Ram Kumar Mehta) arising out
of Criminal Case No. 15-A of 2006, under sections 8C/20(B)(II)(C), 29/25 of N.D.P.S. Act challaned by Directorate of Revenue Intelligence,
Lucknow and order dated 15th October, 2009 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Lucknow in Criminal Case No. 15-A of 2006.
2. Brief facts giving rise to the revision are that the prosecution had moved an application u/s 326 Cr.P.C. read with section 20 of the Juvenile
Justice Act, 2000 for considering the statement already recorded by the trial Court before adjudging the accused as juvenile. In the instant revision
the charge was framed against Ram Kumar Mehta-accused on 20.3.2006. To prove the charges, P.W.1, P.W.2 and the Investigating Officer
were produced. The evidence of Investigating Officer was going on and on 20.11.2008 documentary evidence was also submitted, which has
been exhibited, from Ka-1 to Ka-18. The Sessions Judge vide order dated 20.11.2008 transferred the file for trial before the Juvenile Justice
Board and directed that file be placed on 24.8.2008. The Juvenile Justice Board vide order dated 6.1.2009 declared the accused as juvenile.
3. The Union of India submitted that by virtue of section 326 Cr.P.C. the entire evidence produced before the earlier Court i.e. sessions Court
shall be read in evidence in subsequent Court i.e. Juvenile Justice Board. The Board was of the view that provisions of Juvenile Justice Act will be
applicable only in the cases in which the evidence was recorded before 1st April 2001 i.e. the date on inception of the Juvenile Justice Act. The
Juvenile Justice Board held that since the date of incident is 1.8.2005, therefore, it will not attract section 20 of Juvenile Justice Act, therefore,
provisions of section 326 Cr.P.C. will not provide any safeguard in consequence with section 20, Juvenile Justice Act.
4. The Union of India again preferred an appeal u/s 52 of the Juvenile Justice Act before the Sessions Judge. The Sessions Judge vide order dated
11th November 2009 was of the view that the Juvenile Justice Board has rightly passed the impugned order and that no interference is required in
this case. On the contrary, he has directed that the evidence be recorded on day-today basis of entire witnesses. Aggrieved by the order of the
Sessions Judge, the instant revision has been preferred on behalf of Union of India.
5. The only question for adjudication in this revision before this Court is that whether section 326 Cr.P.C. read with section 20 of the Juvenile
Justice Act provides for continuance of proceedings before Juvenile Justice Board or trial earlier held be set-aside and de novo trial be held by the
Board. It is very important to note that the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000 has been enacted with the object to provide proper care, protection and
treatment to juvenile by catering to their development needs, and by adopting a child friendly approach in the adjudication and disposition of
matters in the best interest of children for their ultimate rehabilitation and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.
6. Learned Counsel for the revisionist emphasize that the order passed by the Juvenile Justice Board as well as by the Sessions Judge are without
jurisdiction as these do not attract apply legal provisions of Juvenile Justice Act, 2000. There is no provision of re-trial of the case. The order
passed by both the courts below directing that de novo trial be initiated is against the provisions of Juvenile Justice Act.
7. The judgment of Hon''ble the Apex Court in the case of Bijender Singh Vs. State of Haryana and Another, , has been placed before me in
which Hon''ble the Apex Court has been given clear ratio and this ratio has also been followed by a Division Bench of Hon''ble Rajasthan High
Court in the case of Mahendra Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan, , and also by a Division Bench of Hon''ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case
of Bablu v. State of Madhya Pradesh 2007 CrI. L.J. (NOC) 17 (M.P.), Hon''ble the Apex Court view as well as view of both the Division
Benches Rajasthan High Court and Madhya Pradesh High Court, specify the special provision in pending cases is provided u/s 20 of the Juvenile
Justice Act, which is reproduced as under:
Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, all proceedings in respect of a juvenile pending in any Court in any area on the date on which this
Act comes into force in that area, shall be continued in that Court as if this Act has not been passed and if the Court finds that the juvenile has
committed an offence, it shall record such finding and instead of passing any sentence in respect of the juvenile, forward the juvenile to the Board
which shall pass orders in respect of that juvenile in accordance with the provisions of this Act as if it had been satisfied on inquiry under this Act
that a juvenile has committed the offence:
Provided that the Board may, for any adequate and special reason to be mentioned in the order, review the case and pass appropriate order in the
interest of such juvenile.
Explanation:--In all pending cases including trial, revision, appeal or any other criminal proceedings in respect of a juvenile in conflict with law, in
any Court, the determination of juvenility of such a juvenile shall be in terms of clause (1) of section 2, even if the juvenile ceases to be so on or
before the date of commencement of this Act shall apply as if the said provisions had been in force, for all purposes and at all material times when
the alleged offence was committed.
8. In the case of Mahendra Singh v. State of Rajasthan (supra) the only contention was that the appellant was adjudged less than 18 years of age
and therefore, he was juvenile under the provision of section 2(k) of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. The trial was
almost completed and order of punishment was to be passed by the Court, therefore, in view of section 20 of Juvenile Justice Act, the conviction
was maintained but sentence was remitted and the Sessions Judge was directed to forward the appellant to the Juvenile Justice Board, who shall
pass appropriate orders in terms of sections 15 and 16 of the Juvenile Justice Act and Rules. Therefore, conviction order cannot be set-aside and
de novo trial cannot be ordered. The only remedy which is given in terms of Juvenile Justice Act is that the sentence be awarded considering the
appellant as juvenile.
9. Similarly in Bablu v. State of Madhya Pradesh (supra) the same ratio was upheld. Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of Bijender Singh v. State of
Haryana and another (supra) held that trial shall continue as if that Act has not been passed and in the event, he is found to be guilty of commission
of an offence, a finding to that effect shall be recorded in the judgment of conviction, if any, but instead of passing any sentence in relation to the
juvenile, he would be forwarded to the Juvenile Justice Board, which shall pass order in accordance with the provisions of the Act.
10. Learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Union of India v. Shabir @ Bhura 2010 (68) ACC 563 (HC), has also upheld the similar
ratio in the instant case. Learned Single Judge of this Court has held. ""Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, sections 8, 21 and
29 Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, section 53 -Accused-respondent charged for offence under NDPS Act-Revision
preferred against impugned order passed by Juvenile Justice Board under-Sustainability-Accused-respondent had raised objection that the
proceedings before Special Judge (E.C. Act)/Trial Court be ignored and a de novo trial to be held-Juvenile Justice Board upheld objection thus
passed impugned order while decided to enquire afresh into the matter ignoring proceedings already held by Trial Court-Appreciation of evidence-
Impugned order and direction issued by Juvenile Justice Board quashed, however, as matter pending for last about 10 years, hence Board to
dispose of case within three months in accordance with law - Direction issued.
11. Therefore, the matter becomes crystal clear on the basis of finding on ratio of Hon''ble Apex Court as well as ratio of the Division Benches of
the two above High Courts and also learned Single Judge of this High Court. I am of the opinion that the orders passed by the Sessions Judge as
well as Juvenile Justice Board suffer from gross irregularity and are liable to be set-aside. The entire evidence be recorded in accordance with
section 326 Cr.P.C. read with section 20 of the Juvenile Justice Act and Juvenile Justice Board is directed to proceed from the stage the trial
Court for warded the appellant to it considering the evidence already recorded by the trial court. The Revision is, therefore, allowed. The file be
remanded back to the Juvenile Justice Board for proceeding expeditiously after considering the evidence in view of section 326 Cr.P.C. read with
section 20, Juvenile Justice Act and decide the same preferably within three months.