D.N. Patel, J.

1. This writ petition has been preferred against following judgment and orders :-

(I) Judgment dated 17/22thJune, 2005 (Annexure 1 to the memo of the writ petition) delivered by Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Latehar in Sessions Case No. 172 of 1989 and 172-A of 1989,

(II) Judgment dated 12th July, 2005 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Latehar in S.T. Case No.172 of 1989/Juvenile tr. No. 97 of 2005 (Annexure 2 to the memo of the petition) and

(III) Memo No. 264 dated 7th February, 2006 issued under the seal and signature of the Under Secretary to the Govt. of Jharkhand, Department of Home (Annexure to supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioners).

2. These petitioners, who were admittedly aged 16 at the time of commission of the offence, were tried jointly with major persons and were convicted vide judgment of conviction dated 17/22ndJune, 2005, mainly for the offence punishable under section 302/34, 148, 307/34 I.P.C. and for quantum of punishment, matter was referred to learned Juvenile Justice Board-cum-Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Latehar under Section 20 of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2000. This judgment is at Annexure 1 to the memo of this writ petition, which is under challenge mainly on the ground that –

(a) There is total lack of jurisdiction on the part of the Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Latehar in conducting sessions trial of these writ petitioners, who were admittedly juvenile as on the date of occurrence, jointly with the major persons. At the date of commission of offence all the petitioners were admittedly below the age of 16 years and they were juveniles even as per the provisions of earlier Act, namely Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 and therefore, the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Latehar cannot conduct the trial of these juvenile delinquents jointly with the major persons as per section 24 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986.

(b) As per Section 18 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, no joint proceeding of juvenile and a person who is not a juvenile can be conducted by the trial court. Section 20 of the Act of 2000 is applicable to those accused persons, who were in the age group of more than 16 years, but less than 18 years because of amendment in Section 2 (l) of the Act, 2000, which was brought into force to nullify the effect of the ratio discendi of a judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pratap Singh vs. State of Jharkhand & Another reported in (2005)3 SCC 551.

(c) In the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hari Ram vs. State of Rajasthan & Another reported in (2009) 13 SCC 211, which is a judgment delivered after the amendment in Section 2 (l) of the Act of 2000 was brought into force on 22nd August, 2006, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that since the appellant was below 18 years of age at the time of commission of the offence the provisions of the said Act would apply in his case in full force.

(d) These writ petitioners can not be relegated to Learned Juvenile Court-cum-Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Latehar for quantification of the punishment because joint sessions trial can not be conducted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Latehar because it is beyond his power, jurisdiction and authority.

(e) Moreover, Major persons, who were convicted jointly have preferred criminal appeal, being Criminal Appeal (D.B) No. 718 of 2005 against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Latehar has been quashed and set aside by the judgment and order dated 13th May, 2009 by a Division Bench of this court (annexure 4 to the supplementary affidavit dated 12th July, 2013 filed by the petitioners).

(f) Counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon a decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Babban Rai & Anr. v. State of Bihar