Hon’ble V.K. Shukla, J.—While Criminal Revision No. 4694/2011 (Jai Prakash Tiwari v. State of U.P. and another) was being heard, a Learned Single Judge of this Court keeping in view the fact that the accused claimed juvenility before the Trial Court in Case Crime No. 122 of 2008 under Section 302 and 394 IPC, P.S. Dhata, District Fatehpur by filing in support of the same, a Junior High School certificate and a High School certificate, that carried date of birth as 9.8.1991 and as the incident has taken place on 14.9.2008, the accused was accepted as juvenile on the date of occurrence as he fell below 18 years on his age being counted from 9th August, 1991. The Additional Sessions Judge accordingly proceeded to pass order dated 29.10.2011 on the application of accused-Subhadra Pathak, under Section 7-A of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (here-in-after referred to as the ‘2000 Act’). The Additional Sessions Judge while passing the order has taken note of the provisions as are contained under Rule 12(3) of the Central Rules and the Revisionist before this Court is complaining that he ought to have followed the procedure envisaged under U.P. Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2004 and ought to have considered certificates beginning from Primary School till High School (failed), the accused would not have been adjudged as a juvenile.

2. Faced with this situation, as the issue in Revision was whether the procedure provided under The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 (herein-after to be referred to as the ‘Central Rules’) should apply to the facts of the case or the procedure provided under the U.P. Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2004, for determination of the age of the accused ought to have been adhered and in view of the fact that issue so raised was of general importance, following issues have been referred to be answered by the Larger Bench:

1. Whether the U.P. Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Rules 2004 need be recast consequent upon addition of Section 7-A of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (as amended by Act No. 33 of 2006).

2. And in case it is found that they need not be recast whether the U.P. Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children)Rules 2004 framed by State Government or The Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Rules 2007 framed by the Central Government shall apply to the matter, in Uttar Pradesh.

3. Shri Sarvesh Kumar Mishra, Advocate appearing on behalf of Revisionist submitted that procedure provided under U.P. Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules 2004, ought to have been adhered to and Central Rules ought not have been pressed into service.

4. Shri Imran Ullah, learned Additional Advocate General, based on the statutory provisions holding the field, has submitted that procedure provided under Rule 12(5) of Central Rules will have to be adhered to as on date under the scheme of things provided for.

5. Shri Birendra Singh, Advocate and Shri M.P. Rai, Advocate representing the accused have also toed the same line of argument as has been toed by the State of U.P.

6. In order to answer the issues that have been so raised, the legislative background as well as relevant statutory provisions holding the field will have to be looked into.

7. The Parliament felt it necessary that uniform juvenile justice system should be available throughout the country which should make adequate provision for dealing with all aspects in the changing social, cultural and economic situation in the country and there was also need for larger involvement of informal systems and community based welfare agencies in the care, protection, treatment, development and rehabilitation of such juveniles and with these objectives in mind, it enacted Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 (for short, ‘’1986 Act’).

8. Looking to the working of Juvenile Justice Act, 19