ORDER : A. Badharudeen, J. This Criminal Miscellaneous Case has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the 2nd accused in C.C. No.1303/2017 on the files of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam, to quash Annexure.A2 order passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate in C.P. No.38/2023 dated 02.12.2023 and all further proceedings pursuant thereto pending as S.C. No.78/2024 on the files of the Special Court for the trial of cases under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, Ernakulam. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor in detail. Perused the legal provisions and judgments on the point. 3. In this matter, the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Sections 23 and 26 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 [hereinafter referred as 'JJ Act' for short]. Earlier, the 1st accused was discharged and accused Nos. 2 and 3 are facing indictment. As per Annexure.A2 order dated 02.12.2023, the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate ordered committal of the case before the Children’s Court, Ernakulam, finding that the said Court alone has jurisdiction to try the offence. 4. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, since the offences alleged are punishable under Sections 23 and 26 of the JJ Act, 2000, the offences shall be tried by the Chief Judicial Magistrate. Therefore, the order of committal is wrong and the impugned order and further proceedings thereof are liable to be quashed. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor pointed out that, as per Section 86(4) of the JJ Act, 2015, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or the Commission for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005 or the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, offences under the JJ Act, 2015 shall be tried by the Children's Court. Therefore, the order of committal is within the ambit of Section 86 of the JJ Act. 6. Therefore, the order of committal is within the ambit of Section 86 of the JJ Act. 6. In the decision reported in Anilkumar M.R. v. State of Kerala [2024 KHC OnLine 474 : 2024 KHC 474 : 2024 KER 40226], when this Court considered offences under the JJ Act, 2015, alleged to be committed on 04.12.2018, referring to Section 86(4) of JJ Act, this Court held that, operation of the procedural law, which would decide the forum in legal proceedings, unless expressly or impliedly provides otherwise, is retrospective in operation. It was held by this court further that, the offences dealt therein to be tried by the Children's Court, in view of Section 86(4) of the JJ Act, 2015. 7. While canvasing the point urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner, she has placed decision of this Court reported in Thresiamma Varkey v. State of Kerala [ 2017 (3) KLT 216 ], wherein also this Court addressed the question of jurisdiction. In paragraph Nos.11 and 18 of the decision this Court held as under: 11. Section 86 of the New Act makes it clear that if the offence under the New Act is punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding seven years, then that offence is triable by a Children's Court. If the offence under the New Act is punishable with imprisonment for a term of three years and above, but not more than seven years, then the said offence shall be triable by a Magistrate of First Class. If the offence under the New Act is punishable with imprisonment for less than three years or with fine only, then the said offence shall be triable by any Magistrate. xxxx 18. The upshot of the above discussion is that the forum for the trial of offences against children shall be decided as provided under Section 86 of the New Act, irrespective of whether the offence was committed prior to the enactment of the New Act or not. Therefore, the Children's Court can try the offences against children or violation of child rights if and only if at least one of the offences alleged is punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding seven years irrespective of whether the offences alleged are offences under the Indian Penal Code or under any other law for the time being in force. Therefore, the Children's Court can try the offences against children or violation of child rights if and only if at least one of the offences alleged is punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding seven years irrespective of whether the offences alleged are offences under the Indian Penal Code or under any other law for the time being in force. Therefore, in respect of cases which are presently pending before the Children's Court, unless atleast one of the offences for which the accused is being tried is punishable with imprisonment of more than seven years, the Children's Court cannot continue with the trial. However, in cases pending before the Children's Court, where the proceedings are concluded under the Old Law, the same cannot be re-opened for the purpose of applying the new procedure. 8. It is relevant to note that, at the time when this Court considered the jurisdictional issue with reference to Section 86 of the JJ Act, 2015, in Thresiamma Varkey’s case (supra), amended Sections 86 (1) to (4), introduced with effect from 01.09.2022, were not in the statute Book. However, in paragraph No.18 of Thresiamma Varkey’s case (supra) this Court categorically held that, the forum for the trial of offences against the children should be decided as provided under Section 86 of the JJ Act, irrespective of whether the offence was committed prior to the enactment of the new Act or not. 9. In this connection, it is relevant to refer Sections 86(1) to (3) of the JJ Act, prior to its amendment with effect from 01.09.2022 and the amended Sections 86(1) to (4) of the JJ Act, with effect from 01.09.2022. 10. Sections 86(1) to (3) of the JJ Act, prior to its amendment were as under: 86. Classification of offences and designated court (1) Where an offence under this Act is punishable with imprisonment for a term more than seven years, then, such offence shall be cognizable, non-bailable and triable by a Children's Court. (2) Where an offence under this Act is punishable with imprisonment for a term of three years and above, but not more than seven years, then, such offence shall be cognizable, non-bailable and triable by a Magistrate of First Class. (2) Where an offence under this Act is punishable with imprisonment for a term of three years and above, but not more than seven years, then, such offence shall be cognizable, non-bailable and triable by a Magistrate of First Class. (3) Where an offence, under this Act, is punishable with imprisonment for less than three years or with fine only, then, such offence shall be non-cognizable, bailable and triable by any Magistrate." 11. Amended Sections 86(1) to (4) of the JJ Act, are as under: 86. Classification of offences and designated court (1) Where an offence under this Act is punishable with imprisonment for a term of more than seven years, then, such offence shall be cognizable and non-bailable. (2) Where an offence under this Act is punishable with imprisonment for a term of three years and above, but not more than seven years, then, such offence shall be non- cognizable and non-bailable. (3) Where an offence, under this Act is punishable with imprisonment for less than three years or with fine only, then, such offence shall be non-cognizable and bailable. (4) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or the Commission for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005 (4 of 2006) or the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), offences under this Act shall be triable by the Children' Court. 12. Thus, it is vivid that prior to the amendment, based on the term of sentence, jurisdiction to try the offences were classified as Children’s Court (if the term of imprisonment is more than seven years), Magistrate of the First Class (if the term of imprisonment is three years and above, but not more than seven years) and by any Magistrate (if the term of imprisonment is less than three years or with fine only). 13. By introduction of Sections 86(1) to (4) with effect from 01.09.2022, the classifications of three courts viz. ‘Children's Court, Court of the Magistrate of the First Class or any Magistrate Court’ were given a go by and the jurisdiction has been engrafted in Sections 86(4) of the JJ Act, making it abundantly clear that Children’s Court alone has the jurisdiction to try all the offences under JJ Act. 14. ‘Children's Court, Court of the Magistrate of the First Class or any Magistrate Court’ were given a go by and the jurisdiction has been engrafted in Sections 86(4) of the JJ Act, making it abundantly clear that Children’s Court alone has the jurisdiction to try all the offences under JJ Act. 14. In Anilkumar M.R’s case (supra) in paragraph Nos.9 to 12, this Court held the retrospective nature of the amendment brought into Section 86 of the JJ Act, 2015. Paragraph Nos. 9 to 12 of Anilkumar M.R’s case (supra) are as under: 9. The sum and substances of the argument mooted by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the amendment is not retrospective. In this connection, it is necessary to refer the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in New India Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Shanti Misra, reported in (1975) 2 SCC 840 and SEBI v. Ajay Agarwal, reported in (2010) 3 SCC 765 : (2010) 2 SCC (Cri) 491, where the Apex Court made in clear and unambiguous terms that, namely, that procedural amendments are presumed to be retrospective in nature, unless the amending statute expressly or impliedly provides otherwise. And also, that generally change of “forum” of trial is procedural, and normally following the above proposition, it is presumed to be retrospective in nature unless the amending statute provides otherwise. This determination emerges from the decision of this Court in [Hitendra Vishnu Thakur v. State of Maharashtra, (1994) 4 SCC 602 : 1994 SCC (Cri) 1087]; [Ranbir Yadav v. State of Bihar, (1995) 4 SCC 392 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 728] and [Kamalesh Kumar v. State of Jharkhand, (2013) 15 SCC 460 : (2014) 6 SCC (Cri) 489], as well as, a number of further judgments noted above. 10. In a latest decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Neena Aneja and Another v. Jai Prakash Associates Ltd., reported in 2021 KHC 6168 : 2022(2) SCC 161 , the Apex court considered the effect of amendment to Consumer Protection Act, 2019, read with S. 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. 10. In a latest decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Neena Aneja and Another v. Jai Prakash Associates Ltd., reported in 2021 KHC 6168 : 2022(2) SCC 161 , the Apex court considered the effect of amendment to Consumer Protection Act, 2019, read with S. 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. After elaborately considering almost all the decisions, including New India Insurance Co.Ltd.'s case (supra), Ajay Agarwal's case (supra) and Ramesh Kumar Soni v. State of M.P. (2013) 14 SCC 696 : (2014) 4 SCC (Cri) 340, the Hon’ble Apex Court in paragraph No.64 held as under” “64 Having stated the above position, we need to harmonize it with the principle that the right to a forum is not an accrued right, as discussed in Part C of this judgment. Simply put, while S.6(e) of the General Clauses Act protects the pending legal proceedings for the enforcement of an accrued right from the effect of a repeal, this does not mean that the legal proceedings at a particular forum are saved from the effects from the repeal. The question whether the pending legal proceedings are required to be transferred to the newly created forum by virtue of the repeal would still persist. As discussed, this Court in New India Assurance (supra) and Maria Christina (supra) has held that forum is a matter pertaining to procedural law and therefore the litigant has to pursue the legal proceedings at the forum created by the repealing act, unless a contrary intention appears. This principle would also apply to pending proceedings, as observed in Ramesh Kumar Soni (supra), Hitendra Kumar Thakur (supra) and Sudhir G Angur (supra). In this backdrop, what is relevant to ascertain is whether a contrary intent to the general rule of retrospectivity has been expressed under the Act of 2019 to continue the proceedings at the older forum.” 11. This principle would also apply to pending proceedings, as observed in Ramesh Kumar Soni (supra), Hitendra Kumar Thakur (supra) and Sudhir G Angur (supra). In this backdrop, what is relevant to ascertain is whether a contrary intent to the general rule of retrospectivity has been expressed under the Act of 2019 to continue the proceedings at the older forum.” 11. Even though in the said decision, the Hon’ble Apex Court, considering the difficulties faced by the consumers covered by the Consumer Protection Act, ordered to continue the cases instituted before the commencement of the Act, 2019 on 20.07.2020 and continue before the forum corresponding rules under the 1986 Act and not to be transferred in terms of the pecuniary jurisdiction set for the forum established under the Act, 2019, the ratio laid therein is that forum is a matter pertaining to procedural law and therefore the litigant has to pursue the legal proceedings at the forum created by the repealing act, unless a contrary intention appears. This principle would also apply to pending proceedings, as observed in Ramesh Kumar Soni (supra), Hitendra Kumar Thakur (supra) and Sudhir G Angur (supra). 12. Thus the legal position as regards operation of the procedural law, which would decide the forum in legal proceedings, unless expressly or impliedly provides otherwise, the same is retrospective in operation and the new forum could have jurisdiction to consider the cases pending before the introduction of the amendment and in relation to occurrence before the amendment. 15. If so, irrespective of the fact that the offences alleged herein are, earlier triable by a Magistrate, in view of operation of Section 86(4) of the JJ Act, 2015, the Children’s Court alone has the jurisdiction to try the offences under the JJ Act, 2000 as well as 2015. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate committing the case before the Children’s Court (Additional District and Sessions Court), Ernakulam, requires no interference. 16. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate committing the case before the Children’s Court (Additional District and Sessions Court), Ernakulam, requires no interference. 16. Before parting, it is relevant to note the observation in paragraph No.3 of the order impugned, stating that when case against the 6th accused was committed to the Children’s Court, the learned Sessions Judge transferred the same to the Magistrate Court by resorting to power under Section 228(1) of Cr.P.C. The said procedure adopted by the Sessions Judge is illegal, since Section 228(1) of Cr.P.C. cannot be applied to transfer a case to the Magistrate Court, which is exclusively triable by a Sessions Court or Special Court. When a special statute designates a special court to try offence under a special character, even though the punishment provided is less than seven years, the Special Court cannot invoke Section 228(1) of Cr.P.C. or 251(1) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 to transfer the case. Therefore, the said transfer also is illegal and has no legal effect. 17. In the result, this petition is dismissed. Accordingly, Annexure.A2 order stands confirmed directing the learned Magistrate to commit offence against all accused including the 6th accused to the Children's Court, for trial and disposal. Interim order of stay in this matter stands vacated. Registry is directed to forward a copy of this order to the trial court, within three days, for information and further steps.