Judgment :- The order dated 13.10.2004 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 218 of 2004, in Sessions case No. 65 of 2004 by the Assistant Sessions Court, Padmanabhaburam, is now under challenge. 2. The criminal revision petitioner as petitioner has filed Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.218 of 2004, praying to transfer Sessions Case No.65 of 2002 to the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court No. I, Tirunelvali (Juvenile Justice Board). 3. It has been stated on the side of the petitioner that in Sessions case No.65 of 2002, the petitioner has been arrayed as accused and the alleged occurrence has taken place at the age of 16 of the petitioner and as per Section 2(k) of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, the Assistant Sessions Court, Padmanabhapuram, has no jurisdiction to conduct the trial in Sessions Case No. 65 of 2002 and the Judicial Magistrate Court. No. I, Tirunalveli (Juvenile Justice Board) is having competent jurisdiction. Under the said circumstances, the petitioner has come forward with the present Petition for the relief sought for in the Petition. 4. It has been contended on the side of the respondent that as per Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, the petitioner is not a Juvenile and the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, has no application to the present case and altogether the petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. The Assistant Sessions Court, Padmanabhapuram, after considering the rival contentions raised by either party, has dismissed the Petition. Against the dismissal order, the present Criminal Revision Case has been filed. 6. The short point that arises for consideration in the present Criminal Revision Case is whether Sessions Case No.65 of 2002 can be ordered to transfer to the file of Judicial Magistrate Court No. I, Tirunelveli (Juvenile Justice Board). 7. Against the dismissal order, the present Criminal Revision Case has been filed. 6. The short point that arises for consideration in the present Criminal Revision Case is whether Sessions Case No.65 of 2002 can be ordered to transfer to the file of Judicial Magistrate Court No. I, Tirunelveli (Juvenile Justice Board). 7. The learned counsel appearing for the criminal revision petitioner has meticulously contended that at the time of occurrence the petitioner has not completed the age of 18 years and as per Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, the Assistant Sessions Court, Padmanabhapuram has no jurisdiction to conduct the trial in Sessions Case No.65 of 2002 and the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Tirunelveli (Juvenile Justice Board) is alone competent to try the offence alleged to have been committed by the petitioner and the Assistant Sessions Court, Padmanabhapuram has erroneously dismissed the Petition and therefore, the dismissal order passed by the Assistant Sessions Court, Padmanabhapuram is liable to be set aside. 8. Along with the criminal revision case, the age certificate of the petitioner has been annexed, wherein it has been clearly stated that the petitioner is above 16 years of age and is below 17 years of age on the day of examination. In fact, the petitioner has been examined on 31.03.2000 and the alleged occurrence had taken place on 29.03.2000. Therefore, it is very clear that on the date of occurrence, the Petitioner has not completed 18 years of age. The Assistant Sessions Court, Padmanabhapuram, has dismissed the Petition in question only on the ground that the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 is not applicable to the present case. 9. The learned counsel appearing for the criminal revision petitioner has befittingly drawn the attention of this Court to the decisions reported in Pratap Singh v. State of Jharkhand and another, 2005 SCC (Crl.) 742, wherein the Apex Court has held as follows; "But in a case of this nature where an additional protection had been granted pursuant to or in furtherance of the international treaties and keeping in view the experience which had been gathered by Parliament after coming into force of the 1986 Act, we think that it should be read in such a fashion so that the extended benefit can be granted even to the juvenile under the 2000 Act. Furthermore, sub-section (2) of Section 69 provides that all proceedings shall be deemed to have been held under the new Act. This is also suggestive of the fact that the new Act would, to the aforementioned extent, apply to a pending proceeding which was initiated under the 1986 Act." 10. From the close reading of the decision reported supra, it is made clear that the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, is also applicable to any pending proceedings which have been initiated under the 1986 Act. Therefore, it is needles to say that the Assistant Sessions Court, Padmanabhapuram, has no jurisdiction to conduct trial in the Sessions Case No.65 of 2002. Further, it is seen from the records that the Judicial Magistrate Court No.1, Tirunelveli, has been designated as Juvenile Justice Board. Therefore the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Tirunelveli, is the only competent forum to conduct proceedings in Sessions Case No.65 of 2002. Under said circumstances, the impugned order passed by the Assistant Sessions Court, Padmanabhapuram, is legally erroneous and the same is liable to be set aside. 11. In fine, this Criminal Revision Case is allowed and the Petition filed in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.218 of 2004 in Sessions Case No.65 of 2002 is allowed. Consequently, connected Crl.M.P.No.1182 of 2004 is closed. 12. The Assistant Sessions Court, Padmanabhapuram, is directed to take suitable steps to transfer the Sessions Case No.65 of 2002 to the Juvenile Justice Board (Judicial Magistrate Court No.1) Tirunelveli.