[Provided that the State Government, or as the case may be the Board, may, for any adequate and special reason to be recorded in writing, review the case of a juvenile in conflict with law undergoing a sentence of imprisonment, who has ceased to be so on or before the commencement of this Act, and pass appropriate order in the interest of such juvenile.
In all cases where a juvenile in conflict with law is undergoing a sentence of imprisonment at any stage on the date of commencement of this Act, his case including the issue of juvenility, shall be deemed to be decided in terms of Clause (1) of Section 2 and other provisions contained in this Act and the rules made there under, irrespective of the fact that he ceases to be a juvenile on or before such date and accordingly he shall be sent to the special home or a fit institution, as the case may be, for the remainder of the period of the sentence but such sentence shall not in any case exceed the maximum period provided in Section 15 of this Act.]
The section makes provision for those juveniles in conflict with law who were undergoing a term of imprisonment at the commencement of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. Such juveniles shall be sent to (i) a Special Home, or (ii) to an appropriate institution as the State Government deems fit for the remaining (unexpired) period of sentence and would be treated in the Special Home or the institution, as the case may be, as if they had been ordered by the Juvenile Justice Board to be sent there. In the alternative, they may also be ordered to be kept under protective care as provided in Section 16 (2) of the Act.
The Allahabad High Court in Dashrath Singh v. State of U.P., held that the powers of Section 64 are to be exercised by the State Government for which the appellant may redress his remedy before the appropriate authority. This section (i.e., Section 64) does not confer any power on the Court to grant any sort of benefit of the J.J. Act, 2000, to the appellant.