opium act - section 9--different versions of chemical examiner and witness regarding handing over of sample in sealed condition for chemical examination--no other evidence that sample examined was same which was recovered from possession of accused--held, acquittal of accused does not call for interference.;appeal dismissed - section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & juvenile justice (care and protection of children) rules, 2007, rule 12 & 98 & juvenile justice act, 1986, section 2(h): [altamas kabir & cyriac joseph, jj] determination as to juvenile - appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 act was in force and under clause (h) of section 2 a juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years - it is with the enactment of the juvenile justice act, 2000, that in section 2(k) a juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years of a ge which was given prospective prospect - appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the juvenile justice act, 2000, came into force - juvenile act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by rule 12 of juvenile justice rule, 2007 - as such, accused has to be treated as juvenile under the said act. - opium on january 25, 1976. the judicial magistrate, jodhpur after trial acquitted him on the ground that the prosecution failed to establish that the sample which was taken from possession of the accused was opium.sobhag mal jain, j.1. the appellant was tried for the offence under section 9 of the opium act for being in possession of 60 gms. opium on january 25, 1976. the judicial magistrate, jodhpur after trial acquitted him on the ground that the prosecution failed to establish that the sample which was taken from possession of the accused was opium. this appeal is directed against the judgment of the judicial magistrate acquitting the accused.2. i have heard learned public prosecutor. the evidence of pepsingh who deposed that he took the sample to the chemical examiner in a sealed condition is discrepant, in as much as, while pepsingh states that he delivered the sample to the chemical examiner in a sealed condition on may 8, 1976, the report of the chemical examiner shows that the sample was received in his office on february 25, 1976. obviously, therefore, the evidence of pep singh cannot be accepted. there is no other evidence on record to show that the sample which was examined by the chemical examiner was the same which was taken from the material found in possession of the accused. the acquittal of the accused recorded by the judicial magistrate, jodhpur does not call for interference.3. accordingly, there is no force in this appeal and the same is dismissed.