JUDGMENT : P.N. PRAKASH, J. 1. This criminal original petition has been filed seeking to file an appeal against the order of acquittal dated 18.02.2019 passed in J.C. No. 30 of 2013 on the file of the Juvenile Justice Board, Krishnagiri. 2. For the sake of convenience, the respondents/accused in this case will be referred to by their names. 3. In connection with the murder of one Mathiazhagan, the Inspector of Police, Nagarasampatti Police Station, Krishnagiri, registered a case in Crime No. 273 of 2011 on 01.08.2011 under Section 302 IPC and during the course of investigation, it came to light that one Anbuselvan (A1) along with two juvenile accused Ajith Kumar (A2) and Thirumal (A3) had committed the murder. Therefore, two final reports were filed one against Anbuselvan (A1) before the jurisdictional Magistrate and the other against Ajith Kumar (A2) and Thirumal (A3) before the Juvenile Justice Board (for brevity “the JJB”) Salem. 4. The JJB, Salem, took up the case as J.C. No. 19 of 2011 and after the formation of Krishnagiri District, the case was transferred to the file of the JJB, Krishnagiri and was re-numbered as J.C. No. 30 of 2013. 5. Ajith Kumar (A2) and Thirumal (A3) faced prosecution for entering into a criminal conspiracy with Anbuselvan (A1) and for committing the murder of Mathiazhagan. Thus, they were facing prosecution for the offences under Sections 120-B r/w 302 and 34 IPC. 6. Before the JJB, Krishnagiri, nine witnesses (PWs. 1 to 9) were examined from 23.07.2018 to 14.09.2018. Since the prosecution did not produce any further witness, the JJB, Krishnagiri, by order dated 18.02.2019, terminated the proceedings in J.C. No. 30 of 2013 under Section 14(2) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children), Act, 2015 (for brevity “the new JJ Act”) r/w Section 258 Cr.P.C. 7. Aggrieved by the said order of termination, the State has preferred the present appeal together with an application for leave under Section 378 (3) Cr.P.C. 8. When the leave application came up for admission before this Court, we passed the following order on 27.01.2021: “The petitioner/police are directed to produce the respondents/accused before this Court on 17.02.2021. Post the matter on 17.02.2021. The Registry is directed to print the names of the respondents/accused in the cause list, so that their entry will be permitted by the CISF.” 9. Post the matter on 17.02.2021. The Registry is directed to print the names of the respondents/accused in the cause list, so that their entry will be permitted by the CISF.” 9. On 22.02.2021, Ajith Kumar (A2) and Thirumal (A3) were produced before this Court and we passed the following order: “1. We directed the police to produce the respondents viz. Ajith Kumar (1st respondent/A-2) and Thirumal (2nd respondent/A-3), before this Court. Accordingly, Mr. B. Ramanathan, Sub-Inspector of Police, Nagarasampatti Police Station, Krishnagiri District, produced the respondents before this Court today. 2. When enquired by us, both of them stated that they do not have means to engage an Advocate to defend them in this proceedings. They also gave individual representations to the said effect in Tamil. 3. Therefore, this Court appoints Mr. R. Vinekanantham, Advocate (E. No. 639/2002), Mobile No. 98400 26790 to represent Ajith Kumar (1st respondent/A-2) and Mr. M. Guruprasad, Advocate (E. No. 395/2007), Mobile No. 99440 00999 to represent Thirumal (2nd respondent/A-3). Both Advocates have been introduced to the respondents, so that they know who their counsel are. Copies of the memorandum of appeal, grant leave petition and typed set of papers have been furnished to both the counsel appointed by this Court. For further hearing, post this petition on 08.03.2021.” 10. Heard Mr. R. Muniyapparaj, learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the petitioner/State, Mr. R. Vivekanantham, learned counsel for Ajith Kumar (A2)/1st respondent and Mr. M. Guruprasad, learned counsel for Thirumal (A3)/2nd respondent. 11. Mr. R. Vivekananthan, learned counsel for Ajith Kumar (A2) and Mr. M. Guruprasad, learned counsel for Thirumal (A3), brought to the notice of this Court Section 25 of the new JJ Act and also the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sathya Deo @ Bhoorey vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2020) 10 SCC 555 and submitted that the JJB, Krishnagiri, should have proceeded under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (for brevity “the old JJ Act”) and not under the new JJ Act. 12. We find sufficient force in their submissions, but they also brought to our notice that the present appeal is not maintainable in the light of Section 52 of the old JJ Act. However, a revision petition is maintainable under Section 53, ibid. 13. We gave our thoughtful consideration to the aforesaid submissions and found that the issue is embroiled in a legal quagmire. However, a revision petition is maintainable under Section 53, ibid. 13. We gave our thoughtful consideration to the aforesaid submissions and found that the issue is embroiled in a legal quagmire. Admittedly, the impugned order dated 18.02.2019 has been passed by the JJB, Krishnagiri, under Section 14(2) of the new JJ Act r/w Section 258 Cr.P.C. and therefore, the said order is in clear violation of Section 25 of the new JJ Act and hence, the same has to be set aside. The bar under Section 52 of the old JJ Act will apply only where an order has been passed under the old JJ Act. 14. Mr. R. Vivekananthan, learned counsel for Ajith Kumar (A2) and Mr. M. Guruprasad, learned counsel for Thirumal (A3) submitted that even under the proviso to Section 14 of the old JJ Act, the JJB, Krishnagiri, should have completed the proceedings within a period of four months from the date of its commencement and the same having not been done in this case, no good purpose will be served by remanding the matter to the JJB, Krishnagiri, for re-consideration. 15. In all fairness, Mr. R. Vivekananthan, learned counsel for Ajith Kumar (A2) and Mr. M. Guruprasad, learned counsel for Thirumal (A3) drew the attention of this Court to Rule 8-A (8) and (9) of the Tamil Nadu Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2001, (for brevity “the TN JJ Rules”) which reads as follows: “8-A. Post-Production processes by the Board: ............ (8) Every inquiry by the Board shall be completed within a period of four months after the first summary inquiry. In exceptional cases involving trans-national offences, large number of offenders or non appearance of the juvenile in conflict with law, the period of inquiry may be extended reasonably on recording the reasons by the board upto two months. (9) In all other cases except where the nature of alleged offence is serious delay beyond four months may lead to the termination of the proceedings.” 16. In our view, the proviso to Section 14 of the old JJ Act does not say that the proceedings should be terminated, if it is not completed within four months from the date of its commencement. In our view, the proviso to Section 14 of the old JJ Act does not say that the proceedings should be terminated, if it is not completed within four months from the date of its commencement. In other words, the old JJ Act does not specify what consequences that would follow, if the proceedings are not completed within four months from the date of its commencement, whereas, Section 14 of the new JJ Act sets certain timeline and also prescribes the consequences thereof. 17. Rule 8-A (9) of the TN JJ Rules (supra) states that except where the nature of the alleged offence is serious, if the proceedings are not completed within four months, it may lead to termination of the proceedings. In this case, Ajith Kumar (A2) and Thirumal (A3) are charged for the offence under Section 302 IPC, which falls within the category of a serious offence and therefore, the four months rule may not apply. 18. The contention of Mr. R. Vivekananthan, learned counsel for Ajith Kumar (A2) and Mr. M. Guruprasad, learned counsel for Thirumal (A3) is that even under the old JJ Act, by virtue of Rule 8-A (3) (e) of the TN JJ Rules, even in cases of enquiry pertaining to serious offences, the JJB was required to follow the procedure of summons-cases, as set out in the Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, the learned counsel submitted that in the absence of any incriminating materials in the evidence of the witnesses so far recorded, the JJB, can act under Section 258 Cr.P.C. and pronounce the judgment of acquittal. 19. We do not want to embark on this exercise as these are questions of fact and must be determined only by the JJB, Krishnagiri. 20. In the result, this criminal original petition is disposed of in the following terms and the criminal appeal is rejected at the SR stage itself: (i) In exercise of our powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, we set aside the order dated 18.02.2019 passed in J.C. No. 30 of 2013 on the file of the JJB, Krishnagiri, under Section 14(2) of the new JJ Act r/w Section 258 Cr.P.C. and remand the matter to the JJB, Krishnagiri, for disposal in accordance with law. (ii) The petitioner/police shall produce Ajith Kumar (A2) and Thirumal (A3) before the JJB, Krishnagiri, on 23.08.2021 at 2.30 p.m. (iii) Thereafter, the JJB, Krishnagiri, shall complete the proceedings in J.C. No. 30 of 2013 within six months from 23.08.2021, provided, Ajith Kumar (A2) and Thirumal (A3) cooperate. (iv) Ajith Kumar (A2) and Thirumal (A3), who are no more juveniles now, shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties under Section 88 Cr.P.C. to the satisfaction of the JJB, Krishnagiri, undertaking to participate in the proceedings in J.C. No. 30 of 2013 without going into abscondance. 21. Before parting, we place on record our appreciation to Mr. R. Vivekananthan, Advocate and Mr. M. Guruprasad, Advocate, for their able assistance. We direct the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority, Chennai, to pay them the prescribed remuneration.