The central legal point established in the judgment is that Section 20 of the Juvenile Justice Act allows for the continuation of proceedings in pending cases and does not provide for a de novo trial.

Heard learned counsel for the Union of India- revisionist, learned counsel for opposite party and perused the relevant record.

2. The instant revision has been preferred under Section 53 of Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2000 against the order dated 11th November 2009 passed by the Sessions Judge, Lucknow in Criminal Appeal No.313 of 2009 ( Union of India Vs. Ram Kumar Mehta) arising out of Criminal Case No.15A of 2006, under Sections 8-C/20 (B) (II) (C), 29/25 of N.D.P.S. Act challaned by Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Lucknow and order dated 15th October, 2009 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Lucknow in Criminal Case No.15-A of 2006.

3. Brief facts giving rise to the revision are that the prosecution had moved an application under Section 326 Cr.P.C. read with Section 20 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000 for considering the statement already recorded by the trial court before adjudging the accused as juvenile. In the instant revision the charge was framed against Ram Kumar Mehta-accused on 20.3.2006. To prove the charges, P.W.1, P.W.2 and the Investigating Officer were produced. The evidence of Investigating Officer was going on and on 20.11.2008 documentary evidence was also submitted, which has been exhibited. from Ka-1 to Ka-18. The Sessions Judge vide order dated 20.11.2008 transferred the file for trial before the Juvenile Justice Board and directed that file be placed on 24.8.2008. The Juvenile Justice Board vide order dated 6.1.2009 declared the accused as juvenile.

4. The Union of India submitted that by virtue of Section 326 Cr.P.C.,the entire evidence produced before the earlier court i.e. sessions court shall be read in evidence in subsequent court i.e. Juvenile Justice Board. The Board was of the view that provisions of Juvenile Justice Act will be applicable only in the cases in which the evidence was recorded before 1st April 2001 i.e. the date on inception of the Juvenile Justice Act. The Juvenile Justice Board held that since the date of incident is 1.8.2005, therefore, it will not attract Section 20 of Juvenile Justice Act, therefore, provisions of Section 326 Cr.P.C. will not provide any safeguard in consequence with Section 20 Juvenile Justice Act.

5. The Union of India again preferred an appeal under Section 52 of the Juvenile Justice Act before the Sessions Judge. The Sessions Judge vide order dated 11th November 2009 was of the view that the Juvenile Justice Board has rightly passed the impugned order and that no interference is required in this case. On the contrary, he has directed that the evidence be recorded on day- to-day basis of entire witnesses. Aggrieved by the order of the Sessions Judge, the instant revision has been preferred on behalf of Union of India.

6. The only question for adjudication in this revision before this Court is that whether Section 326 Cr.P.C. read with Section 20 of the Juvenile Justice Act provides for continuance of proceedings before Juvenile Justice Board or trial earlier held be set-aside and de novo trial be held by the Board. It is very important to note that the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000 has been enacted with the object to provide proper care, protection and treatment to juvenile by catering to their development needs, and by adopting a child friendly approach in the adjudication and disposition of matters in the best interest of children for their ultimate rehabilitation and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.

7. Learned counsel for the revisionist emphasize that the order passed by the Juvenile Justice Board as well as by the Sessions Judge are without jurisdiction as these do not attract apply legal provisions of Juvenile Justice Act, 2000. There is no provision of re-trial of the case. The order passed by both the courts below directing that de novo trial be initiated is against the provisions of Juvenile Justice Act.

8. The judgement of Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Bijender Singh v. State of H