JUDGMENT :

G.A. SANAP, J.

1. RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the learned advocates for the parties.

2. In this revision application, challenge is to the judgment and order dated 13.01.2020, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/Children’s Court, Darwha, whereby learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal filed by the applicant/accused against the order dated 01.04.2019 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Yavatmal (hereinafter referred to as “the J.J.B.” for short) below application (Exh.52).

3. The facts relevant for disposal of this revision application can be summarized as follows:

A crime bearing No. 737/2018 for the offences punishable under Sections 376(3), 376DA, 376(2)(j)(n), 354D, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, under Sections 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 15 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and under Sections 67A, 67B and 66E of the Information Technology Act, 2000, was registered pursuant to the report lodged by the informant/non-applicant no. 2, the father of the minor girl who was subjected to sexual assault. In this crime, there are nine accused. Out of nine accused, initially four accused below 18 years of age were separately tried before the J.J.B. The informant, father of minor girl, on 03.12.2018 made an application (Exh.52) before the J.J.B. for conducting necessary inquiry under Section 15 read with Section 18(3) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as “the J.J. Act” for short) and to try the juveniles in conflict with law (hereinafter referred to as “the JCLs” for short), namely Mustafa Kha Jabbar Kha and Gaurav Raju Pardhi, accused nos. 1 and 5, respectively, as an adult. Pursuant to this application (Exh..52), by order dated 11.03.2019 the J.J.B. partly allowed the application and issued summons to JCL no. 1 and JCL no. 5, for recording their appearance before the J.J.B. on 22.03.2019. The J.J.B. by the said order referred the JCLs to the Psychiatrist, Government Hospital, Yavatmal for assessment of their mental and physical capacity and ability to understand the consequences of alleged offence. Similarly, the J.J.B. directed the Probation Officer to conduct the necessary inquiry and submit report to the J.J.B.

4. The J.J.B. received the Social Investigation Report (SIR) from the Probation Officer on 22.03.2019. The J.J.B. received the report of the Psychiatrist on 01.04.2019. The J.J.B. passed final order on 01.04.2019 and directed that the aforesaid two JCLs be tried as an adult with the remaining adult accused in the crime. The JCL/accused no. 5 did not challenge this order passed by the J.J.B. The JCL/accused no. 1 challenged this order by filing an appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge/Children’s Court at Darwha. The learned Judge dismissed the appeal. Therefore, the JCL/accused no. 1 is before this Court in revision.

5. I have heard Mr. Parvez W. Mirza, learned advocate for the applicant/accused no. 1, Mr. Amit R. Chutke, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for non-applicant no. 1/State and Mr. R. M. Daga, learned advocate for non-applicant no. 2/informant. Perused the record and proceedings.

6. Learned advocate Mr. Parvez Mirza, relying upon Section 3 of the J.J. Act submitted that during the proceeding, the right of participation of JCL was denied inasmuch as they were not granted an opportunity to effectively and meaningfully deal with the application and the material ultimately relied upon by the J.J.B. for the purpose of passing the order. Learned advocate further submitted that the principles of natural justice to ensure basic procedural standards of fairness were not followed. In this connection, reliance is placed on Section 3, sub-clauses (iii) and (xvi) of the J.J.B. Act. Learned advocate submitted that there was violation of provisions of Section 8, Subsection (3), clauses (a) and (e) of the JJ Act. The J.J.B. did not ensure informed participa