F.C.BANSAL,J. - (1.) Accused-petitioner Sanjay Sein has preferred this revision petition against the order dated September 18, 2002 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 2. Jhunjhunu whereby the application of the petitioner filed under section 8 of the Rajasthan Children Act has been dismissed. In his order, learned Additional Sessions Judge has held that the incident took place on 16.5.1999 and on the said day the accused was not below the age of 16 years and, therefore, the provisions of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (for short 'J.J. Act') are not applicable to the case pending in this Court against the accused under section 302 read with 34. I.P.C. I have heard learned Counsel appearing for the accused-petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor and have also perused the impugned order.
(2.) Learned Counsel has placed reliance on the judgment dated February 20, 2004 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in D.B. Criminal Jail Appeal No. 753/ 1999, Vtkram @ Bangali v. State of Raj, In this judgment, the Division Bench has held as under: "The J.J. Act came into existence with effect from April 1. 2001. Section 20 of the JJ Act provides special provision in respect of pending cases and speaks that notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, all proceedings in respect of a juvenile pending in any area on the date on 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. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 62 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2001 (for short 'J.J. Rules') provides that all pending cases which have not received finality shall be dealt with and disposed of in terms of the provisions of the J.J. Act and the rules made thereunder. Section 6 of the J.J. Act provides that the Juvenile Justice Board shall deal exclusively with all proceedings under the J.J. Act relating to juvenile. Sub-section (2) of section 6 mandates that the powers conferred on the Board may also be exercised by the High Court and the Court of Session, when the proceeding comes before them in appeal, revision or otherwise. As per section 2 (k) of the J.J. Act 'Juvenile' or child means a person who has not completed eighteenth years of age. Juvenile in conflict with law in view of section 2 (1) means a Juvenile, who is alleged to have committed an offence. From the preamble of the J.J. Act it appears that the said Act was enacted to consolidate and amend the law relating to juveniles in conflict with law i.e. Juveniles who are alleged to have committed the offence. Although the definition of 'Juvenile' does not indicate that this age is to be seen on the date of occurrence but from the intention of Legislature as appeared from the preamble we hold that the age is to be seen on the date of occurrence. Three Judge Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Umesh Chandra v. State of Rajasthan (1982)2 SCC 202 : 1982(19) ACC 145 (SC), indicated the crucial date to determine whether the accused is a juvenile or not, is the date on which the offence was committed. The instant appeal comes within the definition of pending cases in view of Rule 62 (2) of the J.J. Rules. As already noticed, the incident occurred on March 6, 1998 and the Radiologist Dr. B.L. Gupta examined the appellant on March 10. 1998. On the basis of radiology examination the age of the appellant was less than 18 years, therefore, it can safely be held that the appellant was juvenile on the date of the incident and in these circumstances the sentence awarded to the appellant cannot be upheld in view of section 20 of the J.J. Act."
(3.) In view of the aforesaid judgment. I am of the considered view that in case accused-petitioner Sanjay Sein was below 18 years of age on the date of commission of offence, it is mandatory for the Trial Court to proceed under section 20 of the J.J. Act if it finds that the accused had committed an offence.;