Hon’ble Aditya Nath Mittal, J.—This criminal revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 15.11.2010 passed by Additional Session Judge (Court No. 4), Etawah in Session Trial No. 603/1999 (State v. Shadab Jameel and others), under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 302/34 I.P.C., by which the application of the revisionist for separate his trial from other co-accused persons, has been rejected.

2. The brief facts are that the revisionist whose date of birth is 1.7.1981, was charged for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 302/34 I.P.C. Under the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 he was not juvenile but after the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, by which the age of juvenile was extended up to 18 years, the revisionist moved an application before the Sessions Judge to declare him juvenile. The occurrence took place on 28.2.1999, when he had already completed 16 years of age but has not attained the 18 years of age. Accordingly, vide order dated 6.8.2010 he was declared juvenile.

3. Subsequent to that on 28.10.2010, the revisionist moved an application before the Sessions Judge to separate his trial in view of Sections 17 and 18 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, which was rejected by the impugned order dated 15.11.2010, on the ground that the case is covered by the provisions of Section 20 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, hence there is no sufficient ground to separate his file. It is relevant to mention here that the application to separate the trial was moved when all the evidence of the prosecution had concluded and the case was fixed for arguments. In the order dated 6.8.2010, when the accused was declared juvenile, it was mentioned that his case shall be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of Section 20 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. This order of 6.8.2010 was not challenged and as an additional ground the learned lower Court came to the conclusion that this Court has no power to recall or review his previous order.

4. This revision has been filed on the ground that as per provision of Section 18 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, the revisionist cannot be tried for any offence together with the provisions, who are not juvenile. The trial Court completely loosing site of the said provision, has illegally rejected the application of the revisionist. In the present case the charges were framed against the revisionist on 13.11.2002, hence it cannot be said that at the time of coming into force of the Act of 2000, the case was pending before the Court, therefore, provisions of Section 20 of the Act 2000, will not apply in the present case.

5. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A.

6. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the Act of 2000 is a benevolent Act and the very scheme of the aforesaid Act is rehabilitatry in nature and not adversarial, therefore, all the benefits of the Act 2000 must be provided to the revisionist. It is also submitted that there appears to be a conflict between the provisions of Section 18 and Section 20 of the Act of 2000 and the benefit of Section 18 should be extended to the revisionist. It is also submitted that the charges were framed on 13.11.2002, hence it cannot be said that on the date of commencement of this Act i.e. 1.4.2001, the trial was pending before the Court.

7. Section 18 of the Act of 2000 provides as under :

“18. No joint proceeding of juvenile and person not a juvenile.—(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 223 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or in any other law for the time offence together with a person who is not a juvenile. being in force, no juvenile shall be charged with or tried for any

(2) If a juvenile is accused of an offence for which under Section 223 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 19