JUDGMENT Hon’ble V.K. Dixit, J.—Heard learned counsel for the Revisionist and learned counsel for the opposite party. 2. This Criminal Revision has been preferred under Section 53 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 against the impugned order dated 5.7.2008 for inquiry afresh passed by the learned Juvenile Judge, Lucknow in Criminal Case No. 278 of 2006 (Union of India v. Shabbir) under Sections 8/21/29, NDPS Act, challaned by Central Bureau of Narcotics, Lucknow. 3. The brief facts of the case are that a complaint was filed by the Central Bureau of Narcotics, Lucknow, in the Court of Sessions Judge, Lucknow against the four accused, namely, Abdul Aziz, Sairabi alias Praveen, Ibrahim and Shabir alias Bhura, who were arrested outside Charbagh Railway Station and two kg. heroin was recovered from the bag of accused Ibrahim. Accused Sairabi alias Praveen and Abdul Aziz died during trial and the learned trial Court proceeded against rest of the two accused, namely, Ibrahim and Shabir alias Bhura. During trial six prosecution witnesses were examined. After the statement of accused Ibrahim and Shabir alias Bhura under Section 313, Cr.P.C. in defence accused Shabir alias Bhura examined his father, Lau Bhaiya as defence witness. On the basis of medical examination report, the accused Shabir alias Bhura was declared juvenile by the learned trial Court/Special Judge (E.C. Act), Lucknow and by the order dated 4.11.2006 his case was sent to Juvenile Justice Board for further proceeding of the case and the accused was directed to appear before the Juvenile Board for further proceeding on 15.11.2006. The learned Special Public Prosecutor for Union of India moved an application before the Juvenile Justice Board that the original file in which statement of witnesses were recorded, be summoned from the Court of Special Judge, (E.C. Act), Lucknow but Juvenile Justice Court refused to do so, as such an application was moved before the learned Special Judge, (E.C. Act), Lucknow where the statement of the witnesses were recorded, for sending the original file of Criminal Case No. 87/1999 (Union of India v. Ibrahim and others) under Sections 8/21/29, NDPS Act, challaned by Central Bureau of Narcotics, Lucknow to Juvenile Justice Board. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the co-accused Ibrahim was convicted by the learned Special Judge, (E.C. Act), Lucknow in the aforesaid case Crime No. 87/1999 (Union of India v. Ibrahim and others) under Section 8/21 of the NDPS Act and has been sentenced for 10 years rigorous imprisonment? with a fine of Rs.1.00 Lakh against which the convict Ibrahim had filed the Criminal Appeal No. 2510 of 2006 before this Court which was admitted on 7.12.2006 and subsequently by the order dated 21.9.2007 co-accused Ibrahim was enlarged on bail.? It is also submitted that an application was moved before this Court in the aforesaid criminal appeal No. 2510 of 2006 and the Court was pleased to order to send the file to the Board. An objection was raised by the accused Shabir alias Bhura that the proceedings before the learned Special Judge (E.C. Act), Lucknow be ignored and a de-novo trial/inquiry afresh be held by the Juvenile Justice Board. The said objection was upheld by the Juvenile Justice Board and the Court has decided by the impugned order dated 5.7.2008 to inquire into the matter afresh ignoring the proceeding already held before the Trial Court/learned Special Judge, (E.C. Act), Lucknow. The aforesaid order dated 5.7.2008 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board (hereinafter in short the Board) has been challenged before this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the revisionist argued that the impugned order under challenge has been passed without applying the legal provisions of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the J.J. Act). It is further argued that there is no provision of retrial of the case denovo and the order for denovo trial/inquiry afresh passed by the learned Juvenile Justice Board is inconsistent with the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge (E.C. Act), Lucknow. Learned counsel for the revisionist has relied upon the law laid down by Hon’ble the Apex Court in the case of Bijender Singh v. State of Haryana and another reported in 2005 Crl L.J. 2195 (S.C.), by a Division Bench of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Mahendra Singh v. State of Rajasthan, reported in 2004 Cr.L.J. 1606 and by a Division Bench of Hon’ble Madhya Pradhesh High Court in the case of Bablu v. State of M.P. reported in 2007 Cr. L.J. (NOC) 17 M.P. 5. L.J. (NOC) 17 M.P. 5. Learned counsel for the opposite party confined his arguments to the extent that the opposite party is only willing for expeditious disposal of the case either on the basis of evidence already recorded by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge or on the basis of evidence afresh before the Juvenile Justice Board. 6. Special provision in respect of pending cases is provided in Section 20 of the J.J. Act, which is reproduced as under : 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 provisions of this Act as if it had been satisfied on inquiry under this Act that a juvenile has committed the offence : Provided that the Board may, for any adequate and special reason to be mentioned in the order, review the case and pass appropriate order in the interest of such juvenile. Explanation.—In all pending cases including trial, revision, appeal or any other criminal proceedings in respect of a juvenile in conflict with law, in any Court, the determination of juvenility of such a juvenile shall be in terms of clause (1) of section 2, even if the juvenile ceases to be so on or before the date of commencement of this Act shall apply as if the said provisions had been in force, for all purposes and at all material times when the alleged offence was committed.” 7. In Mahendra Singh’s case (supra), it was held that the only contention advanced before us was that on the date of the incident the appellant was less than eighteen years of age and as per Section 2 (k) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (for short ‘JJ Act’) was juvenile, therefore, in view of Section 20 of the JJ Act the appellant could not have been sentenced. While maintaining the conviction of the appellant under Section 302, 452 and 324/34, IPC, we set aside the order of sentence and remit the case to learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sikar with the direction to forward the appellant to the Juvenile Board who shall pass appropriate orders in terms of Section 15 and 16 of the JJ Act and JJ Rules.” 8. In Bablu’s case (supra), it was held that plea of as to juvenile raised before the trial Court and was raised for the first time before the appellate Court, would not vitiate entire proceedings against him. Conviction was upheld while sentence of the imprisonment for life alongwith fine was set aside with the directions to produce appellant before Juvenile Justice Board, which shall then act in accordance with provisions of Act. 9. In Bijender Singh’s case (supra), it was held by Hon’ble the Apex Court that Section 20 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 takes care of such a situation stating that despite the same the trial shall continue in that Court as if that Act has not been passed and in the event, he is found to be guilty of commission of an offence, a finding to that effect shall be recorded in the judgment of conviction, if any, but instead of passing any sentence in relation to the juvenile, he would be forwarded to the Juvenile Justice Board (in short the ‘Board’) which shall pass orders in accordance with the provisions of the Act as if it has been satisfied on inquiry that a juvenile has committed an offence. A legal fiction has, thus, been created in the said provision. A legal fiction as is well-known must be given its full effect although it has its limitations. 10. In the instant case, it is admitted case of the parties that the sessions trial against the revisionist was pending on the date the J.J. Act came into force. In the sessions trial six prosecution witnesses were examined. After the statement of co-accused Ibrahim and accused/opposite party Shabir alias Bhura under Section 313, Cr.P.C., in defence accused/opposite party Shabir alias Bhura examined his father DW-1 Lau Bhaiya as defence witness. In the sessions trial six prosecution witnesses were examined. After the statement of co-accused Ibrahim and accused/opposite party Shabir alias Bhura under Section 313, Cr.P.C., in defence accused/opposite party Shabir alias Bhura examined his father DW-1 Lau Bhaiya as defence witness. On the basis of medical examination report accused/opposite party Shabir alias Bhura was declared juvenile by the learned trial Court/Special Judge (E.C. Act), Lucknow vide order dated 4.11.2006, his case was sent to the Board for further proceeding of the case and the accused Shabir alias Bhura was directed to appear before the Board for further proceeding on 15.11.2006. The learned Special Public Prosecutor for the revisionist moved an application before the Board that the original file in which statement of witnesses were recorded, be summoned from the Court of Special Judge (E.C. Act), Lucknow but the Board refused to do so, as such an application was moved before the learned Special Judge, (E.C. Act), Lucknow for sending the original file of Criminal Case No.87/1999 (Union of India v. Ibrahim and others) under Sections 8/21/29, NDPS Act, challaned by the Central Bureau of Narcotics, Lucknow, to the Board. An objection on behalf of the accused Shabir alias Bhura was raised that the proceedings before the learned Special Judge (E.C. Act), Lucknow be ignored and a de novo trial /inquiry afresh be held by the learned Board. The said objection was upheld by the Board and by the impugned order dated 5.7.2008 the Board decided to inquire into the matter afresh ignoring the proceeding already held before the Sessions Judge/learned Special Judge (E.C. Act), Lucknow. The J.J. Act, 2000 is enacted with the object to provide proper care, protection and treatment by catering to their development needs, and by adopting a child-friendly approach in the adjudication and disposition of matters in the best interest of children and for their ultimate rehabilitation and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. Our Constitution also imposed on the State a preliminary responsibility of ensuring that all the needs of children are met and that their basic human rights are fully protected. The legislature had enacted the law to extend special treatment in respect of the proceedings and conviction to juvenile so that the delinquent juvenile derive full benefit of the provisions of the J.J.Act. The legislature had enacted the law to extend special treatment in respect of the proceedings and conviction to juvenile so that the delinquent juvenile derive full benefit of the provisions of the J.J.Act. 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. 11. 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 v. 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. As the matter is pending for the last about 10 years, it is directed that the learned Juvenile Justice Board shall dispose of the case expeditiously as far as possible, within three months, in accordance with law. Both the parties are directed to appear before the learned Juvenile Justice Board on 19.9.2009 for further proceeding of the case. The office is directed to send a copy of this order to the learned Juvenile Justice Board for compliance. ————