ORDER
A.C. Kabbin, J.
1. The revision petitioner is accused No. 3 in S.C. No. 327/2005 and 328/2005 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Bangalore Rural District, registered for offences punishable under Section 395 of the Act. He was aged above 16 years on the date of each offence. Since he had already attained the age of Sixteen years then, he could not be considered as a Juvenile as per law then in force i.e., the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, (referred to in this order as 1986 Act for the sake of convenience). By the time charge sheet was filed, new Act i.e. Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2000 (referred to in this order as new Act No. 56/2000 for the sake of convenience) came into force. Under the new Act, the definition of the word Juvenile means a person, who has not completed eighteenth year of age. The short point that has therefore arisen is whether such an accused who was not a Juvenile under the 1986 Act can be considered as a Juvenile in conflict with law under the new Act or 2000 Act.
2. On 5.3.01, there was a dacoity in the godown of K.S.F.C., Jayanagar Branch, Bangalore, and more than fifty sewing machines kept in that godown were taken away and with regard to that, a complaint was registered against unknown persons. Similar dacoity was committed a few days prior to 12-12-2000. 49 such Sewing Machines stolen from that godown were recovered in Chennai. It is stated that in the house of one Smt. Geetha, Kottigepalya, Bangalore, 8 Sewing Machines were recovered. This revision petitioner is stated to be the son of the said Geetha and it is alleged that he was involved in the said dacoity. He was arrested on 16.4.01. He has been charge sheeted along with other accused for having committed the dacoity and theft of sewing machines. The present revision petition has been filed claiming that since on the date of the alleged offence, he was aged only 16 years 5 months and was a juvenile in conflict with law under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children), Act, 2000, charged sheet could not have been placed against him along with other accused before a Criminal Court.
3. It is submitted by Sri J. Chandrashekharaiah, Learned Counsel for the revision petitioner that if it was the intention of the prosecution to prosecute the said boy, it could have been done by placing a charge sheet before the Juvenile Justice Board, in view of the provisions of Section 6 of the new Act i.e., Act No. 56/2000.
4. To evidence the age, reliance has been placed by the Learned Counsel for the revision petitioner on the charge sheet, wherein the age of this revision petitioner has been shown as 17 years. A copy of S.S.L.C. certificate relating to the revision petitioner has been produced, which shows the date of birth of the revision petitioner as 6.10.1984. He was more than 16 years of age on the date each of offence, but was less than 18 years of age. Definition of juvenile given in the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 covered a boy who had not attained the age of 16 years on the date of offence. In the new Act, a boy who has not attained the age of 18 years has to be considered as Juvenile in conflict with law. The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 came into force on 05.04.2001, after the date of the offences. On that ground, the Learned Trial Judge, by order dated 02.02.2006 has held that since the revision petitioner was not a Juvenile on the date of the offence as per the provisions of 1986 Act, which was in force at the time of the incident, there was no bar to try this petitioner in a Sessions Court. That order passed in S.C.327/2005 and similar order passed in S.C. No. 328/2005 have been challenged in these two revesion petitions.
5. The Contention of Sri Satish R. Girji, Learned High Court Government Pleader is that since the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 was in force prior to 5.4.01 and also on the date of the offence, the revision petitioner not being a juvenile as per the law then in force, the question of considering his prosecution under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 does not arise.
6. The object behind both the Acts i.e., 1986 Act and new Act, i.e., Act No. 56/2000 is to consolidate and amend the law relating to children and Juveniles by adopting a child friendly approach in the adjudication and disposition of matters in the best interest of the Children. Since the Justice system as available to adults was considered not suitable for being applied to Juveniles/Children, First, Children Act, 1960 and later Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 were enacted. The intention behind the provisions of these Acts takes into consideration the need for care and protection to the children and Juveniles. The treatment of the Juveniles in these two Acts is to take them from the rigor of a regular trial and to try them by special forums called Juvenile Courts, now Juvenile Justice Board, which provide not only the care, protection, treatment, development and rehabilitation of the children and Juveniles, but also contain provisions in respect adjudication of the guilt or otherwise of such Juveniles. In the case of Sheela Barse and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. : [1986]3SCR562 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the trial of the children must take place in Juvenile Courts and not in regular Criminal Courts. A review of the working of the Juvenile Act 1986 found the need for including the male offenders between the age group of 16 and 18 years also within the definition of Juvenile. Therefore as per the definition of juvenile or child in the new Act, i.e., Act No. 56/2000, a person who has not completed eighteenth year of age is a juvenile. The idea behind the new Act is to make justice system meant for juveniles more appreciative of the developmental needs in comparison to criminal justice system as applicable to adults. Therefore even in respect of the offence committed prior to 05-04-2001 that is before the commencement of Act No. 56/2000, if the accused had not completed eighteenth year of age on the date of the offence and by the time the charge sheet is filed, the new Act, i.e., Act No. 56/2000 has come into force, such person has to be considered as a juvenile in conflict with law for the purpose of prosecution and Trial under the provisions of Act No. 56/2000, i.e., Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000.
7. In the present case, the revision petitioner had not completed the eighteenth year of age on the date of the offence. He was identified as one of the culprits after the advent of Act No. 56/2000. Chargesheet was filed after the advent of Act No. 56/2000. Therefore, he being a juvenile in conflict with law as per Act No. 56/2000, his prosecution can be only before the Juvenile Justice Board.
8. For the above said reasons, both the revision petitions are allowed and the order dated 02-02-2006 passed in each of Sessions Case No. 327/2005 and 328/2005, so far they relate to the revision petitions are set aside. The cognizance taken by the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bangalore Rural District by order dated 26.8.05 in C.C.Nos.843/2004 & 842/2004 respectively so far as the orders relate to this revision petitioner and committal of the cases against him to the Court of Session are hereby set aside with liberty to the I.O. to place the charge sheets against the Juvenile before the Juvenile Justice Board if the materials are sufficient against him.