Shri Kant Tripathi, J. - (1.) Heard Sri Sunil Kumar, learned counsel for the revisionists and learned AGA for the State.
(2.) This is a revision against the order dated 9.5.2006 passed by Mr. S. Lal, Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 3, Bulandshahar in ST. No. 45 of 1995 (State v. Natthi and others) whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge refused to hold the revisionists Subhash, Nanda @ Nan Kishore, Harpal and Harkesh as juveniles.
(3.) It appears that the occurrence of this case took place on 18.6.1994 and on that date the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 was in force, in which a male person upto the age of 16 years was considered as a juvenile. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bulandshahar appears to have refused to declare the revisionists as juveniles on the ground that they had already completed 18 years before the commencement of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 and based this finding on the verdict of a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Pratap Singh v. State of Jharkhand and others, AIR 2005 SC 2731. The aforesaid Act of 2000 has been materially amended in the year 2006 by the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) (Amendment) Act 2006 and thereby an explanation was added in Section 20 of the Act of 2000 which is extracted as follows: 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 term of clause (I) 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." The provisions of Act of 2000 as amended by the Amending Act of 2006 have been considered by the Apex Court in the case of Hah Ram v. State of Rajasthan, (2009) 13 SCC 211. The Apex Court held: "The said intention of the legislature was reinforced by the amendment effected by the said amending Act to Section 20 by introduction of the proviso and the Explanation thereto, wherein also it has been clearly indicated that in any pending case in any Court the determination of juvenility of such a juvenile has to be in terms of Section 2 (I) even if the juvenile ceases to be so "on or before the date of commencement of this Act" and it was also indicated that the provisions of the Act would apply as if the said provisions had been in force for all purposes and at all material times when the alleged offence was committed." ;