BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J.

( 1 ) THE Counsel for the petitioner as well as the Counsel for the State have been heard. This revision petition has been filed challenging the order dated 29. 3. 2006 passed by the Special judge (NDPS Act), Karkardooma Court, delhi whereby the present petitioner, who is a 'juvenile in conflict with law' within the meaning of the Juvenile Justice (Care and protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the 'juvenile Justice Act')has been directed to undergo trial before the special Judge under the NDPS Act and not before the Juvenile Justice Board.

( 2 ) AN application was filed on 10. 12. 2004 before the Special Judge (NDPS Act) on behalf of the petitioner for sending him before the Juvenile Justice Board for trial. The present case pertains to an alleged recovery having been made from the juvenile which would be covered as an offence under sections 21/29 of the Narcotic Drugs and psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the NDPS Act ). There is no doubt that the present petitioner was less than 18 years of age on the date of the incident. This has been accepted by the Court below. Therefore, there is no question that the present petitioner would fall within the definition of a 'juvenile in conflict with law' as appearing in Section 2 (1) of the Juvenile justice Act inasmuch as an offence has allegedly been committed and the present petitioner is below 18 years of age. Section 2 (p) defines 'offence' to mean an offence punishable under any law for the time being in force. The petitioner has allegedly committed the offence under Sections 21/29 of the ndps Act and, therefore, it would fall within the definition of offence under section 2 (p) of the Juvenile Justice Act. The word 'juvenile' means, according to Section 2 (k) of the Juvenile Justice Act, a person who has not completed the 18th year of age. The petitioner, therefore, clearly falls within the expression 'juvenile in conflict with law' as appearing in Section 2 (1) of the Juvenile justice Act inasmuch as he is a juvenile who is alleged to have committed an offence.

( 3 ) THE learned Special Judge examined the provisions of Section 6 of the Juvenile justice Act as well as Section 36a of the ndps Act and came to the following conclusions: "7. Upon bare reading of aforesaid section, I find that learned Counsel for the accused is misinterpreting this section. All proceedings as mentioned in Section 6 of the juvenile Justice (Care and protection of Children) Act, 2000 have been qualified to be under the aforesaid Act and it does not mean that the NDPS Act would be also covered within the ambit of juvenile Justice (Care and protection of Children) Act, 2000 because special powers are required to be conferred upon the court as per Section 36 (a) of the ndps Act for dealing with cases under NDPS Act. Judgment reported in 2003 (46) ACC 828 relied upon by the learned Counsel for the accused is of no help to the case of the present accused as the question of trial of a juvenile by juvenile Justice Board under the ndps Act was not specifically raised nor dealt with in the above cited case. It is not the case of this accused that Juvenile Justice board is vested the powers under the NDPS Act and, therefore, the present accused cannot be sent before Juvenile Justice Board for trial in this case under the NDPS Act. " the petitioner is aggrieved by this conclusion of the learned Special Judge (NDPS Act ).

( 4 ) MS. Kapur, the learned Counsel appearing for the State, has fairly stated on instructions that the present petitioner ought to be tried by the Juvenile Justice board and not by the Special Judge under the NDPS Act. The reasons for such a submission are clear and they are that Section 6 of the Juvenile Justice Act would have an overriding effect over all other provisions of law for the time being in force which would include Section 36a of the NDPS Act. For better clarity, the relevant, provisions of the Juvenile