IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1428 of 2010 PRAVEEN KUMAR @ PARBEEN KUMAR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR For the petitioner :Mr.Baghirath Nr.Mishra, :Mr.B.K.Mishra & : Mr. S.N.Ravi For the State :Mr.Jharkhandi Upadhyaya,APP ----------- 04. 27.10.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. Petitioner was facing trial being S.Tr.No.1022 of 2006 of the court of learned F.T.C.-III, Bhagalpur for an offence punishable under section 376 IPC. In the said case, charges were framed on 10.10.2006. Witnesses were examined on behalf of prosecution and cross-examined by the petitioner. Let it be recorded here that petitioner is the sole accused facing the aforesaid trial. It appears that all the prosecution witnesses were examined in the case. An application was filed on behalf of the petitioner for declaring him juvenile. An enquiry seems to have been made in terms of the provisions contained in Juvenile Justice(Care & Protection of Children) Act,2000 (hereinafter referred to as the „Act‟), whereafter by order dated 19.03.2010, petitioner was declared juvenile. Having found so, learned trial court transmitted the records of the case to the J.J. Board for disposal of the case. Before the learned board, an application was filed on behalf of the petitioner for recording his statement under section 313 Cr. P.C. as all the prosecution witnesses were examined and cross-examined in the case. The 2 defence did not want to examine any witness. Learned Board rejected the said application by the impugned order dated 05.08.2010 after having held that the trial will proceed de novo. This is the order assailed in the present proceeding. Learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the order impugned, submits that if as per the order the trial is to proceed de novo, then the same shall be in teeth of the provisions of the Act, particularly section 20 thereof. It is next contended that petitioner has a constitutional right to speedy trial as interpreted by different courts including the Apex Court in relation to the provisions contained in Article 21 of the Constitution of India. He relies on a judgment of the Allahabad High Court rendered in the case of Union of India vs. Shabir @ Bhura [2010(1)ARC 428]. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State on going through the aforesaid case is not in a position to controvert the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner. Section 20 of the Act reads as under: “20.Special provision in respect of pending cases.- Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, all proceedings in respect of a juvenile pending in any court 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 previsions of this Act as if it had been satisfied on inquiry under this Act that a juvenile has committed the offence.” 3 A Bench of the Allahabad High Court dealt with identical issue in the case of Union of India vs. Shabir(Supra) and has observed as under in paragraph nos.6 & 7: “6…..Undisputedly, the accused-opposite party Shabir alias Bhura, on his application for seeking the benefit of Juvenile Justice Act, was declared juvenile by the learned trial court/Special Judge(E.C.Act), Lucknow when the sessions trial was at the stage of defence. As discussed above and in view of the special provision in respect of pending cases under Section 20 of the J.J. Act and in the light of law laid down in the above mentioned cases, the learned Board ought to have proceeded from the stage from which learned Special Judge (E.C. Act), Lucknow forwarded the juvenile Shabir alias Bhura to the Board for further proceedings in the matter, in accordance with the provisions of the J.J. Act. The impugned order dated 5.7.2008 passed by the Board is not in accordance with the provisions of J.J. Act. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 5.7.2008 whereby the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Lucknow has directed for inquiry afresh in the matter is liable to be quashed. 7. Consequently, the revision is allowed. The impugned order dated 5.7.2008 passed by the learned Juvenile Justice Board in Criminal Case No.278 of 2006(Union of India vs. Shabir) is set aside. It is directed that the Juvenile Justice Board shall proceed with the case from the stage from which the learned Special Judge(E.C. Act) vide his order dated 4.11.2006 forwarded the juvenile Shabir alias Bhura to the Board for further proceedings in the matter, in accordance with the provisions of J.J. Act ……..” The matter can be appreciated and/or examined from a different aspect as well. Petitioner is in custody since February, 2006. Speedy trial is one of the constitutional rights of the litigant(s). It has to be borne in mind that he is the only accused facing the trial. It has also to be kept in focus that all the witnesses were examined in his presence and in fact cross- 4 examined. In that view of the matter, no prejudice is going to cause to the petitioner if the trial is not taken up de novo. Examination of witnesses already examined in the case afresh will definitely consume time and will protract the trial. In view of law laid down by the Allahabad High Court as also the provisions contained in section 20 of the Act, the stand taken by the court under the impugned order does not seems to be legal. For all these reasons, this Court is inclined to interfere with the order. Consequently, the application is allowed. Order dated 05.08.2010, passed by learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Bhagalpur is quashed and set aside. Learned J.J. Board shall proceed with the trial from the stage at which it was transferred/transmitted to the learned J.J. Board for disposal of the case/trial. hr ( Kishore K. Mandal )