This criminal revision petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 30.05.2009 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Hailakandi in Sessions Case No. 55 of 2002 directing denovo trial of the non-juvenile accused, who were facing trial with the juvenile accused, before the trial of the juvenile accused was separated. 2. I have heard Mr. I.H.Laskar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Ms. A. Begm, learned Additional P.P. for the State of Assam as well as Mr. B. Banerjee, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. S. Laskar, learned counsel representing the private-respondents. 3. The facts, leading to filing of this revision petition, may be stated, in brief, as follows :- On the basis of the 'Ejahar' filed by the petitioner 05.08.2001 against the respondent Nos. 2 to 9 for alleged killing of his two brothers, the police investigated the case and submitted charge sheet against the accused/respondents for commission of offence under Sections 147/148/149/341/326/323/302 of IPC. 4. Out of all the said accused-respondents, two respondents, namely, respondent Nos. 8 and 9 absconded from the jurisdiction of the Court. The trial commenced before the learned Sessions Judge, Hailakandi in the year 2002. During the last 7 years, the trial continued in a snail's pace, and in all 11 prosecution witnesses were examined and also cross-examined including the medical officers and the Investigating Officer. On 05.02.2008, an application was submitted before the learned Sessions Judge, Hailakandi on behalf of the accused Moin Uddin Borbhuiya @ Kuti Mia Barbhuiya, praying for declaring him to be a juvenile. Accordingly, learned Sessions Judge, Hailakandi by an order dated 07.03.2009 declared him to be a juvenile. 5. After declaration of accused Moinuddin Borbhuyan as a juvenile, the non-juvenile accused persons, who were facing trial so long, submitted application before the learned Sessions Judge, Hailakandi on 01.04.2009 praying for fresh trial of the accused persons, who are not juvenile. Learned Sessions Judge, Hailakandi vide impugned order dated 30.05.2009 allowed the petition of the accused petitioner and ordered for fresh trial, i.e. denovo trial of those accused in the case, who are not juvenile, and thus fixed the date for framing fresh charge against the non-juvenile accused. The impugned order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Hailakandi, reads as follows:- “30.5.08 All the accused persons are present. The impugned order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Hailakandi, reads as follows:- “30.5.08 All the accused persons are present. Perused the petition No.495/1 dated 1.4.09 filed by the accused Hussain Ahmed with a prayer for an order for fresh trial as one of the accused Moin Uddin has been declared as Juvenile and ordered separate trial for him. Ld. Counsel for the accused submitted that as one of the accused Moin Uddin has been declared juvenile and ordered for separate trial so the evidence so recorded and the trial proceeded jointly will vitiate the entire trial as per Juvenile Justice Act. He further submitted that there cannot be a joint trial with the juvenile along with the other accused. Accordingly, he submitted for separate fresh trial of the accused persons. I have also heard the Ld. PP and Ld. Counsel for the informant. Sec. 18 of the Juvenile Justice Act provides that - (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sec. 223 of the Cr.P.C, 1973 or in any other law for the time being in force, no juvenile shall be charged with or tried for any other offences together with a person who is not a juvenile, (2) If a juvenile is accused of an offence for which under Sec. 223, CrPC., 1973 or any other law for the time being in force such juvenile and any person who is not a juvenile would, but for the prohibition contained in sub Sec. 1 have been charged and tried together, the Board taking cognizance of that offence shall direct separate trial for the juvenile and the other persons. So, it appears that there can not be a joint trial with juvenile offender along with other non-juvenile accused. As the trial of a criminal case commences from the date of framing of charge and explanation of the offence, so in my considered opinion, a separate charge is required to be framed afresh and fresh trial is required to be conducted. Accordingly, the petition so filed by the accused persons for fresh trial is allowed. The case is posted for consideration of charge. Fixing 30.6.2009.” 6. Accordingly, the petition so filed by the accused persons for fresh trial is allowed. The case is posted for consideration of charge. Fixing 30.6.2009.” 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned Sessions Judge by misinterpreting the provisions of Section 17 and 18 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to 'the Act of 2000') arrived at a totally erroneous finding, which is not tenable in the eye of law. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the Act of 2000 provides for separate trial against the juvenile, who is declared as a juvenile at the stage of trial and it does not provide for a fresh trial in respect of all other accused persons, who are not juvenile and are so long being tried together with the juvenile by a competent court of appropriate jurisdiction. 7. Section 7-A of the Act of 2000 specifically provides that when a claim of juvenility is raised before any Court or a Court is of the opinion that the accused person was a juvenile on the date of commission of offence, the Court after making an inquiry and on ascertaining the truth shall forward the juvenile to the Board for passing appropriate orders. Claim of juvenility may be raised at any stage. Section 7-A of the Act of 2000 reads as follows: “7-A. Procedure to be followed when claim of juvenility is raised before any Court.-(1) Whenever a claim of juvenility is raised before any Court or a Court is of the opinion that an accused person was a juvenile on the date of commission of the offence, the court shall make an inquiry, take such evidence as may be necessary(but not an affidavit0 so as to determine the age of such person, and shall record a finding whether the person is a juvenile or a child or not, stating his age nearly as may be: provided that a claim of juvenility may be raised before any Court and it shall be recognized at any stage, even after final disposal of the case, and such claim shall be determined in terms of the provisions contained in this Act and the rules made thereunder, even if the juvenile has ceased to be so on or before the date of commencement of this Act. (2) If the Court finds a person to be a juvenile on the date of commission of the offence under sub-section (1), it shall forward the juvenile to the Board for passing appropriate order, and the sentence, if any, passed by a Court shall be deemed to have no effect.” 8. The provisions as provided under Section 18 of the Act of 2000, specifically indicate that a juvenile in age shall not be tried for any offence whatsoever together with a person, who is not a juvenile. Section 18 of the Act of 2000 reads as follows: “18. No joint proceeding of juvenile and person not a juvenile.-(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 223 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973(2 of 1974) or in any other law for the time being in force, no juvenile shall be charged with or tried for any offence together with a person who is not a juvenile. (2) If a person is accused of an offence for which under section 223 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973(2 of 1974) or any other law for the time being in force, such juvenile and any person who is not a juvenile would, but for the prohibition contained in sub-section (1), have been charged and tried together, the Board taking cognizance of that offence shall direct separate trials of the juvenile and the other person.” 9. The aforesaid provision cannot be interpreted to mean that the non-juvenile accused, who are being tried together with the juvenile, are required to be tried in a fresh trial. Simply because of the reason that they were tried together with the juvenile and the case of the juvenile has been segregated and forwarded to a Juvenile Board for trial of the case against the non-juvenile accused do not become illegal. Direction issued by the learned Sessions Judge for denovo trial of all those non-juvenile accused persons, for the reasons that they were being tried with the juvenile so long, is an improper interpretation of the provisions of Section 18 of the Act 2000 and thus, not sustainable in law. 10. Mr. B. Banerjee, learned senior counsel appearing for the accused-respondents vehemently submitted that since the accused persons were tried with the juvenile so long, their trial has been vitiated, and, therefore, all the accused-respondents are required to be tried in a de-novo trial. 10. Mr. B. Banerjee, learned senior counsel appearing for the accused-respondents vehemently submitted that since the accused persons were tried with the juvenile so long, their trial has been vitiated, and, therefore, all the accused-respondents are required to be tried in a de-novo trial. Learned senior counsel for the respondents submitted that the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge is legally justified. In support of his contention, learned senior counsel for the accused-respondents has relied on a decision reported in 1989 1 AWC 335 (Guddu @ Pradyamnu Kumar Singh V. State of U.P.), wherein in terms of provision of Section 23 and 24 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, which is parimeteria with the provisions of Section 18 of the present Act, i.e., the Act of 2000, submitted that the trial of the non-juvenile accused shall be vitiated for having taken the trial together with the juvenile. The relevant extract of the decision, as relied on by the learned counsel for the accused-respondents, may be quoted below:- “7. …… ..…. Section 24 clearly lays down that notwithstanding anything contained in Section 223 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, or in any other law for the time being in force, no juvenile shall be charged with or tried for, any offence together with a person who is not a juvenile. Sub-section (2) of this Section lays down that if a juvenile is accused of an offence for which under Section 223 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, or any other law for the time being in force, such juvenile and any person who is not a juvenile would but for the prohibition contained in Sub-section (1), have been charged and tried together, the court taking cognizance of that offence shall direct separate trials of the juvenile and the other person.” 11. It can be easily discerned that the decision in Guddu @ Pradyamnu Kumar Singh(supra) did not prohibition continuance of the trial of the non-juvenile accused by the learned Sessions Courts, even if the trial up to some stage was carried out together with the juvenile. The moot question being protection of the rights of the juvenile, therefore, in terms of the provision of Section 18 of the Act of 2000, a juvenile cannot be tried with other non-juvenile accused. The moot question being protection of the rights of the juvenile, therefore, in terms of the provision of Section 18 of the Act of 2000, a juvenile cannot be tried with other non-juvenile accused. After the segregation of the case of the juvenile having forwarded the juvenile to the Juvenile Board for trial of his case, the accused persons, who were facing trial in the Sessions Court, shall still continue to be tried by the same forum, which framed the charge and recorded evidence of other witnesses. In fact, there is no change of forum of trial or jurisdiction of the Court for the non-juvenile accused, who were facing trial. Therefore, there is no question of prejudice being caused for continuance of the trial in the same court and also by the same trial Judge. There is no reason whatsoever for taking up de-novo trial for the non-juvenile accused in the facts and circumstances of the case. 12. In view of the above, I am of the considered view that the learned Sessions Judge, Hailakandi committed error by misinterpreting the provisions of Section 18 the Act of 2000, and accordingly, the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Hailakandi deserves to be set aside and quashed. 13. Consequently, the impugned order dated 30.05.2009 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Hailakandi is set aside and quashed. The learned Sessions Judge, Hailakandi is directed to proceed with the trial of the case against non-juvenile accused from the stage at which the case of the juvenile was segregated. As the trial is continuing since 2002, the learned Sessions Judge, Hailakandi is directed to conclude the trial in accordance with law, as early as possible without any further delay. However, since the case of the juvenile has already been segregated and has been forwarded to the Juvenile Justice Board for trial in terms of the Act 2000, I do not deem it justified to pass any order in this regard. 14. With the above observations and directions, this revision petition stands disposed of. 15. Send down the lower court records with a copy of this judgment & order immediately.