ORDER:

1. The challenge has been given by the mother of juvenile to the order dated 30.03.2026 passed by the learned 3^rd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bhavnagar in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.472 of 2026. The child-in- conflict-with-law (for short, ‘CCL’) was aged about 16 years and ten months at the time of the incident. The FIR was lodged against the CCL as well as against his own father and the father was in judicial custody.

2. The Juvenile Justice Board (for short, ‘JJ Board’) by an order dated 06.09.2025 under Section 15 and 18(3) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2015 (for short, the ‘JJ Act’) declared the child-in-conflict-with-law to be tried as an adult. Hence was ordered to be sent to the Children's Court.

3. The present applicant as mother had made a prayer before the Court for condoning the delay of 187 days in challenging the order dated 06.09.2025, whereby the JJ Board had ordered her son to be tried as an adult in the Children's Court. The ground raised was that her husband was in jail and that she being a laborer had stated that she could not receive timely legal advice and that had led to the delay of 187 days.

4. Learned Advocate Mr. Chirag Aydi on behalf of learned Advocate Mr. Maulik Soni submitted that wide powers are granted to the Court of Sessions by the proviso in Sub-section (1) of Section 101 of the JJ Act and the said could be made applicable to the provision under Sub-section (2) of Section 101 of the JJ Act.

5. Learned APP Mr. Niraj Sharma to assist the Court has made a reference to the case of Child In Conflict With Law Through His Mother vs. State of Karnataka and Anr., reported in 2024 (8) SCC 473 to state that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has dealt with the provisions of Section 15, 18, 101 of the JJ Act and has clarified the anomaly which gets created under Section 101 of the JJ Act.

6. Sub-section (1) along with the proviso of Section 101 of the JJ Act is reproduced here-in-below:

Section 101 Appeals: “(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, any person aggrieved by an order made by the Committee or the Board under this Act may, within thirty days from the date of such order, prefer an appeal to the Children’s Court, except for decisions by the Committee related to Foster Care and Sponsorship After Care for which the appeal shall lie with the District Magistrate:

Provided that the Court of Sessions, or the District Magistrate, as the case may be, may entertain the appeal after the expiry of the said period of thirty days, if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time and such appeal shall be decided within a period of thirty days.”

6.1 Sub-section (1) provides that any person who is aggrieved by an order by the Board may prefer an appeal to the Children's Court within 30 days from the date of such an order. The appeal as provided lie before the Children's Court. The proviso to the said sub-section further clarifies that in case such appeal is not preferred within 30 days, then the Court of Sessions may entertain the appeal after the expiry of the said period of 30 days, if the Court of Sessions is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time and then such appeal shall be decided within a period of 30 days.

6.2 The proviso to sub-section (1) thus gives a power to the Court of Sessions to entertain an appeal after the statutory period of 30 days gets elapsed, if the appellant is in a position to satisfy the Court that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time.

6.3 Sub-section (2) of Section 101 also would require a specific mention since here in the present matter, the CCL would be facing the proceedings under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘IPC’), which falls under the definition of ‘heinous offence’. Admitted position on record is that the JJ Board on 06.09.2025 had passed an order under Section 15 and Secti