Shiva Kirti Singh, J.

1. This criminal revision application has been preferred by informant of Sheikhpura P.S. Case No. 148 of 1999 registered under Sec. 302 and other allied sections of the Indian Penal Code as well as Sec. 27 of the Arms Act.

2. Petitioner is aggrieved by and has challenged the order dated 11-3-2002 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge IX Munger in a criminal appeal bearing No. 204 of 2001 whereby the appeal preferred by opposite party No.2 one of the accused seeking a declaration that he is a juvenile was allowed after reversing the order dated 19-10-2001 passed by learned A.C.J.M. Sheikhpura (Juvenile Court).

3. The relevant facts for deciding the present controversy may be noticed in brief. Opposite party No.2 being one of the named accused for an alleged occurrence of 18-5-1999 under Sec. 302 and other sections of the Indian Penal Code surrendered before the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate on 5-8-1999. Instead of determining the age of the opposite party No.2 on surrender the learned Additional Chief Justice Magistrate remanded opposite party No.2 to custody as the accused did not plead for declaring himself a juvenile. It further appears that in an application for bail before this Court opposite party No.2 claimed to be a minor at the time of the alleged occurrence. In view of such a plea he was given liberty to appear the competent authority so that an enquiry may be held to determine his age for finding out whether he was a juvenile or not. It further appears that pursuant to such liberty opposite party No.2 was again produced before the Juvenile Court on 28-4-2000. After due enquiry the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate came to a definite finding that opposite party No.2 was born on 5-2-1982. Thereafter following the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Arnit Das V/s. State of Bihar, he held that on the date of appearance for the purpose of enquiry, i.e. on 28-42000 the accused was not a juvenile. In appeal the learned Sessions Court affirmed the finding regarding date of birth but on the basis of records it held that the date of first appearance of the accused before the A.C.J.M., the competent authority was 5-8-1999 when the accused had first surrendered. Thereafter, the appellate Court applied the definition of juvenile as given in Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children). Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 2000) and concluded that since the accused, opposite party No.2 on 5-8-1999 was less than 18 years of age hence he was entitled to be treated and dealt with as a Juvenile with regard to Sheikhpura P.S. Case No. 148/1999.

4. On behalf of petitioner/informant it was submitted that there is no error so far as finding regarding birth of opposite party No.2 is concerned but both the Courts below committed an error of law in not noticing the fact that the Act of 2000 came into force only on 1st of April, 2001 and on that date opposite party No.2 was already more than 18 years of age. It was further submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the case of the accused must be decided as per provisions of Juvenile Justice Act. 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1986) in which a male accused is not qualified to be treated as a Juvenile if he was more than 16 years of age. It was further submitted that the relevant date for determination of age and for giving a finding as to juvenility of the accused must be the date of the alleged occurrence as held by a Bench of three Judges of the Supreme Court in the case of Umesh Chandra V/s. State of Rajasthan. In other words, according to learned Counsel for the petitioner the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Arnit Das (supra) by a Bench of two Judges is in conflict with the law laid down in the earlier case of Umesh Chandra and that also without noticing the earlier judgment of three Judges and hence the earlier judgment of a Larger Bench in the case of U