JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. By way of this petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, challenge is laid to the judgment dated 20.12.2018, passed by the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P. in Criminal Appeal No. 48-K/2013, vide which learned Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal filed by the present petitioner on the ground that as the appeal had been filed by the petitioner against the order of acquittal passed by the Juvenile Justice Board in favour of juvenile, appeal was not maintainable under Section 52 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 2000 Act’). 2. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and after perusing the impugned judgment, as also the statutory provisions of 2000 Act, this Court finds no infirmity with the judgment passed by the learned Appellate Court. 3. It is not in dispute that the judgment passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Kangra at Dharamshala in Criminal Case No. 12-II/2011, which was instituted on 03.12.2010, was under the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. It is also a matter of record that feeling aggrieved by the acquittal of the juvenile, present petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 52 of the old Act, i.e., 2000 Act (wrongly mentioned in the judgment passed by the learned Appellate Court as 1986 Act’). Sub-section (2) of Section 52 of the 2000 Act clearly contemplates that no appeal shall lie from any order of acquittal passed by the Juvenile Justice Board in respect of a juvenile alleged to have committed an offence. It is on the basis of the said statutory provision that the appeal stands dismissed by the learned Appellate Court as not maintainable. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner primarily lays challenge to the said order on the ground that as now the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 is in force, therefore, the judgment passed by the learned Appellate Court is not sustainable, as the learned Appellate Court erred in not appreciating that under the new Act, an appeal is maintainable even against the acquittal orders. 5. 5. There is a fallacy in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, because when the matter was decided under the 2000 Act and the appeal was also preferred against the judgment of acquittal under the 2000 Act, then the appeal was to be decided under the provisions of 2000 Act and not under the provisions of 2015 Act. In this view of the matter, there is neither any perversity nor any jurisdictional error in the judgment of the learned Appellate Court. Accordingly, as there is no merit in the appeal, the same is dismissed being devoid of any merit. Petition stands disposed of.