IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.126 of 2008 SHAILENDRA SINGH, SON OF LATE SHYAM NARAYAN SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- NADAW, POLICE STATION-BUXAR, MUFASSIL, DISTRICT- BUXAR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR For the petitioner : Mrs. Soni Srivastava, Advocate. For the O.P. : Mr. Jitendra Pd Singh, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, APP ----------- 3 30.07.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel the opposite party. Petitioner, claiming himself to be juvenile, filed an application before the learned trial court (learned Addl. Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-I, Buxar) in Sessions Trial No. 88/85. An inquiry in terms of Section 7A of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter called as the J.J. Act) was made. On consideration of the materials placed on record, learned trial court came to the following conclusion.: “Thus, according to this Ext. which is reliable document the date of birth of the petitioner is 7.8.67 and the date of occurrence of this case is 29/30-5-84 on which the age of accused was 16 years 9 months 23 days and according to provision of Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 the juvenile means a boy who had not attained the age of 16 years. Thus, on the date of occurrence of this case the petitioner was not a juvenile” Learned counsel for the submits that in view of the pronouncement made by this Court in the case of Akhilesh Oja versus State of Bihar reported in 2008 (1) P.L.J.R. 806 and in the case of Chhotai Singh versus State of Bihar reported in 2008 (2) P.L.J.R. 624 as also the latest pronouncement made by Hon’ble 2 Supreme Court in the case of Hari Ram versus State of Jharkhand reported in 2009 (3) P.L.J.R. (S.C.) 123 the conclusion of the learned trial court that the petitioner is not a juvenile in terms of the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 is wholly erroneous. It is contended that in place of 1986 Act, a new Act has taken over called Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. Provisions contained in Sections 7A and 20 of the 2000 Act have been found to have retrospective effect. It is the contention of the petitioner that this issue has been clearly decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hare Ram (Supra). Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the other side does not dispute this position appearing in law. Consequently the order impugned dated 24.11.2007 passed in Sessions Trial No. 88 of 1985 is hereby set aside. Petitioner on the strength of the findings arrived at by learned trial court after making inquiry in terms of the provisions of the Act is hereby declared as Juvenile. The trial court shall now proceed in accordance with law. pkj ( Kishore K. Mandal, J. )