Read Time: 11 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court has on May 7, 2024 declared that provision of Section 14(3) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 providing for the period of three months for completion of a preliminary assessment of the Child in Conflict with Law under Section 15 of the Act, is not mandatory. 

In an important judgment on practice and procedure under the Juvenile Justice Act, a bench of Justices C T Ravikumar and Rajesh Bindal has clarified the period granted for preliminary assessment is 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, the court has said.

The court also said the words ‘Children’s Court’ and ‘Court of Sessions’ in Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 and the 2016 Rules should 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," the bench said.

The apex court also declared that appeal, under Section 101(2) of the Act against an order of the Board passed under Section 15 for preliminary assessment into heinous offences, can be filed within a period of 30 days. 

"The appellate court can entertain the appeal after the expiry of the period, provided sufficient cause is shown. Endeavour has to be made to decide any such appeal filed within a period of 30 days," the court has said.

It has further directed 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, it said.

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.

"In many of the orders the presence of the parties and/or their counsels is not properly recorded. Further, it is not evident as to on whose behalf adjournment has been sought and granted. It is very relevant fact to be considered at different stages of the case and also to find out as to who was the party delaying the matter. At the time of grant of adjournment, it should specifically be mentioned as to the purpose therefor. This may be helpful in imposition of costs also, finally once we shift to the real terms costs," the bench said.

It has directed a copy of the judgment should be sent to all the Registrar Generals of High Courts for further circulation amongst the Judicial Officers and the Members of the Juvenile Justice Boards, the Directors of the National Judicial Academy and the State Judicial Academies.

This judgment has been rendered on an appeal filed by the Child in Conflict with the Law against the Karnataka High Court's order of November 15, 2023 which set aside an order by the Juvenile Justice Board to proceed against the Child in Conflict with Law as juvenile.

The Board had dismissed an application by complainant/mother of the victim before the Board for termination of proceedings and transferring the matter to the Children’s Court, to try the Child in Conflict with law as adult.

An FIR was registered against the CCL for commission of offences under sections 376(i), 342 IPC and sections 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

In the case, on April 05, 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. The record was directed to be transferred to the Court concerned. However, when the file was put up before the Member of the Board for signatures, he recorded: “I am having a dissenting view to abovesaid order. I will pass detailed order on next date of hearing.”

The matter was adjourned to April 12, 2022. No separate order, as recorded by the Member of the Board on April 05, 2022, was passed. On April 12, 2022 the matter was apparently 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.

After hearing senior advocates Sidharth Luthra and S Nagamuthu, for the CCL, the bench held there is no error in the order by the High Court dealing with the procedure as provided for under the Act in terms of Section 7(4) thereof. 

The court said the order passed by the Board as signed by the Principal Magistrate on April 05, 2022 was final. However, the order is subject to right of appeal of the aggrieved party. The appellant shall have the right of appeal against the order within a period of 10 days from today. The appellate authority shall make an endeavour to decide the same within a period of two months from the date of filing, the court ordered.

Case Title: CHILD IN CONFLICT WITH LAW THROUGH HIS MOTHER vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER