Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 – s. 14(3) – Whether the period provided for completion of preliminary assessment u/s.14(3) of the 2015 Act is mandatory or directory:
Held: The preliminary assessment into the heinous offence by the Board in terms of Section 15(1) of the Act has to be concluded within a period of three months in terms of Section 14(3) of the Act – The Act as such does not provide for any extension of time and also does not lay down the consequence of non-compilation of inquiry within the time permissible – In the absence thereof the provision prescribing time limit of completion of inquiry cannot be held to be mandatory – Thus, the provision of Section 14(3) of the Act, providing for the period of three months for completion of a preliminary assessment under Section 15 of the Act, is not mandatory – The same is held to be directory – The period can be extended, for the reasons to be recorded in writing, by the Chief Judicial Magistrate or, as the case may be, the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate – As in the process of preliminary inquiry there is involvement of many persons, namely, the investigating officer, the experts whose opinion is to be obtained, and thereafter the proceedings before the Board, where for different reasons any of the party may be able to delay the proceedings, the time so provided in Section 14(3) cannot be held to be mandatory, as no consequences of failure have been provided as is there in case of enquiry into petty offences in terms of Section 14(4) of the Act. [Paras 9.13, 9.14, 18(i)]
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 – Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Model Rules, 2016 – Whether the words ‘Children’s Court’ and ‘Court of Sessions’ in Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 and the 2016 Rules shall be read interchangeably:
Held: From a conjoint reading of the provisions of the Act and the 2016 Rules, wherever words ‘Children’s Court’ or the ‘Sessions Court’ are mentioned both should be read in alternative – In the sense where Children’s Court is available, even if the appeal is said to be maintainable before the Sessions Court, it has to be considered by the Children’s Court – Whereas where no Children’s Court is available, the power is to be exercised by the Sessions Court – The words ‘Children’s Court’ and ‘Court of Sessions’ in Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 and the 2016 Rules shall be read interchangeably – Primarily jurisdiction vests in the Children’s Court – However, in the absence of constitution of such Children’s Court in the district, the power to be exercised under the Act is vested with the Court of Sessions. [Paras 12.2, 18(ii)] Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 – What is the time period to file an appeal u/s. 101(2) of the Act against an order of the Board passed u/s. 15 of the Act: Held: Appeal, under Section 101(2) of the Act against an order of the Board passed under Section 15 of the Act, can be filed within a period of 30 days – The appellate court can entertain the appeal after the expiry of the aforesaid period, provided sufficient cause is shown – Endeavour has to be made to decide any such appeal filed within a period of 30 days. [Para 18(iii)] Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 – Whether all the orders passed by the Courts, Tribunals, Boards and the Quasi-Judicial Authorities, the names of the Presiding Officer and/or the Members who sign the orders shall be mentioned:
Held: In all the orders passed by the Courts, Tribunals, Boards and the Quasi-Judicial Authorities the names of the Presiding Officer and/or the Members who sign the orders shall be mentioned – In case any identification number has been given, the same can also be added. [Para 18(vii)]
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 – Whether the Presiding Officers and/or Members, while passing the order shall properly record presence of the parties and/or their counsels, the purpose for which the matter is being adjourned and the party on whose behalf the adjournment has been sought and granted:
Held: The Presiding Officers and/or Members while passing the order shall properly record presence of the parties and/or their counsels, the purpose for which the matter is being adjourned and the party on whose behalf the adjournment has been sought and granted. [Para 18(viii)]
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 – ss. 7, 3 – Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Model Rules, 2016 – An FIR was registered against the Child in Conflict with Law (CCL) u/ss. 376(i), 342 IPC and ss. 4, 5, 6,
7 and 8 POCSO Act – Arguments regarding whether the CCL is to tried by the Board or as an adult by the Children’s Court were heard by the Principal Magistrate and the Member of the Board – Matter was adjourned to 05.04.2022 for order – On 05.04.2022, the Principal Magistrate of the Board passed an order holding that as per preliminary assessment report and the social investigation report, the CCL is to be tried as an adult by the Children’s Court – However, when the file was put up before the Member of the Board for signatures, he recorded that he was having a dissenting view and would pass a detailed order – No separate order was passed – On 12.04.2022, the matter was heard afresh by two Members of the Board without there being the Principal Magistrate – Order was passed that as per the preliminary assessment report and the social investigation report, the enquiry regarding the alleged offence committed by the CCL has to be conducted by the Board as a juvenile – Correctness:
Held: Section 7 of the Act deals with the procedure in relation to the Board – Sub-Section 3 thereof provides that the Board may act notwithstanding absence of any member of the Board – No order passed by the Board shall be invalid by reason only of absence of any member during any stage of proceedings – The proviso thereto provides that at the time of final disposal of the case or making an order under Section 18(3) of the Act, there shall be at least two members including the Principal Magistrate – Section 7(4) of the Act provides that in case there is any difference of opinion in the interim or the final disposal, the opinion of the majority shall prevail – Where there is no such majority, the opinion of the Principal Magistrate shall prevail – A perusal of the record shows that after the order was reserved on 29.03.2022, the matter was listed on 05.04.2022 for orders – The Principal Magistrate recorded his opinion that the CCL is to be tried by the Children’s Court – The other member of the Board recorded his dissent though, no detailed reasons were given as such – In such a situation the opinion of the Principal Magistrate will prevail – In the case in hand the order was signed by the Principal Magistrate – Even if the other member of the Board had not signed the order and had merely mentioned that he had a dissenting view, without any reasons being recorded, the order of the Principal Magistrate will prevail – Thus, order passed by the Board as signed by the Principal Magistrate on 05.04.2022 was final. [Paras 15.2, 15.4, 15.5]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.