The revision petitioner is accused 3 in S.C. Nos. 327 and 328 of 2005 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Bangalore Rural District, registered for offences punishable under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. He was aged above 16 years on the date of each offence. Since he had already attained the age of sixteen years then, he could not be considered as a Juvenile as per law then in force i.e., the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 (referred to in this order as 1986 Act for the sake of convenience). By the time charge-sheet was filed, new Act i.e., Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (referred to in this order as new Act No. 56 of 2000 for the sake of convenience) came into force. Under the new Act, the definition of the word "Juvenile" means a person who has not completed eighteenth year of age. The short point that has therefore arisen is whether such an accused who was not a Juvenile under the 1986 Act can be considered as a Juvenile in conflict with law under the new Act or 2000 Act.

2. On 5-3-2001, there was a dacoity in the godown of K.S.F.C., Jayanagar Branch, Bangalore, and more than fifty sewing machines kept in that godown were taken away and with regard to that, a complaint was registered against unknown persons. Similar dacoity was committed a few days prior to 12-12-2000. 49 such sewing machines stolen from that god own were recovered in Chennai. It is stated that in the house of one Smt. Geetha, Kottigepalya, Bangalore, 8 Sewing Machines were recovered. This revision petitioner is stated to be the son of the said Geetha and it is alleged that he was involved in the said dacoity. He was arrested on 16-4-2001. He has been charge-sheeted along with other accused for having committed the dacoity and theft of sewing machines. The present revision petition has been filed claiming that since on the date of the alleged offence, he was aged only 16 years 5 months and was a Juvenile in conflict with law under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, charge-sheet could not have been placed against him along with other accused before a Criminal Court.

3. It is submitted by Sri J. Chandrashekharaiah, learned Counsel for the revision petitioner that if it was the intention of the prosecution to prosecute the said boy, it could have been done by placing a chargesheet before the Juvenile Justice Board, in view of the provisions of Section 6 of the new Act i.e., Act No. 56 of 2000.

4. To evidence the age, reliance has been placed by the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner on the charge-sheet, wherein the age of this revision petitioner has been shown as 17 years. A copy of S.S.L.C. certificate relating to the revision petitioner has been produced, which shows the date of birth of the revision petitioner as 6-10-1984. He was more than 16 years of age on the date each of offence, but was less than 18 years of age. Definition of Juvenile given in the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 covered a boy who had not attained the age of 16 years on the date of offence. In the new Act, a boy who has not attained the age of 18 years has to be considered as Juvenile in conflict with law. The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 came into force on 5-4-2001, after the date of the offences. On that ground, the learned Trial Judge, by order dated 2-2-2006 has held that since the revision petitioner was not a Juvenile on the date of the offence as per the provisions of 1986 Act, which was in force at the time of the incident, there was no bar to try this petitioner in a Sessions Court. That order passed in S.C. No. 327 of 2005 and similar order passed in S.C. No. 328 of 2005 have been challenged in these two revision petitions.

5. The contention of Sri Satish R. Girji, learned High Court Government Pleader is that since the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 was in force prior to 5-4-2001 and also on the date of the offence, the revision petitioner not being a Juveni