Hon’ble Shri Narayan Shukla, J.—Heard Mr.Shrawan Kumar, learned counsel for the revisionist as well as Mr.Rajendra Kumar Dwivedi, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.

2. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 8th of February, 2011, passed by the Additional District Judge, Raebareli in Sessions Trial No. 221 of 1994, whereby the petitioner’s application for sending the matter for trial to the Juvenile Justice Board has been rejected.

3. Briefly, the undisputed facts are that the petitioner’s date of birth is 30th of December, 1978. The date of occurrence of offence is 23rd of March, 1991. On the date of occurrence the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 was in operation and according to the scheduled Act the maximum age for determination of juvenile was 16 years. It is also admitted fact that the petitioner was declared juvenile by means of order dated 19th of June, 2003 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Raebareli, but it appears that any how the matter went to the High Court on the orders passed on the Misc. Application and now it has to be heard again by the Additional Sessions Judge, who fixed the date for arguments.

4. In the meantime the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 came into effect with effect from 1st of April, 2001, which has also been amended by means of Amendment Act 33 of 2006 with effect from 22nd of August, 2006. In respect of the pending cases the special provisions have been envisaged, which are extracted below :

“20. Special provision in respect of pending cases.—Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, all proceedings in respect of a juvenile pending in any Court in any area on the date of which this Act comes into force in that area, shall be continued in that Court as if this Act had 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 and the provisions 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.]

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the petitioner has been declared juvenile on 19th of June, 2003, the case has to be tried by the Special Court i.e. the Juvenile Justice Board, not by the regular trial Court. It is not in dispute that on the date of enforcement of Act, 2000, there was no such declaration and as per admitted date of birth, the petitioner had already completed 18 years of age. In support of his case, the learned counsel for the petitioner cited a case of Pratap Singh v. State of Jharkhand and another, AIR 2005 SC 2731. Relevant paragraph 31 of the aforesaid judgment is extracted below :

“31. Section 20 of the Act as quoted above deals with the special provisions in respect of pending cases and begins with non-obstante clause. The sentence “notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, all proceedings in respect of a juvenile pending in any Court in any area on date of which this Act came into force” has great significance. The proceedings in respect, of a juvenile pending in any Court referred to in Section 20 of the Act is relatable to proceedings initia