Back
2024 INSC 387
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
C.T. RAVIKUMAR, RAJESH BINDAL, JJ.
Child In Conflict With Law through His Mother – Appellant
Versus
The State of Karnataka and Another – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 2411 of 2024, Arising Out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 3033 of 2024
Decided On : 07-05-2024
(A) Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 – Sections 14(3), 15 and 19 – Juvenile Justice (Care And Protection of Children) Model Rules, 2016 – Rules 10A and 11 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 376(i), 342 and Sections 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 – Plea of juvenility by accused – Preliminary assessment is to be conducted with regard to his mental and physical capacity to commit such an offence, ability to understand consequences of offence and circumstances in which offence was allegedly committed – As far as inquiry of CCL, as envisaged under Section 14(1) of Act, by Board for heinous offences is concerned, there is no deadline after which either inquiry cannot be proceeded further or has to be terminated – As in the process of preliminary inquiry there is involvement of many persons, time so provided in Section 14(3) cannot be held to be mandatory but directory, as no consequences of failure have been provided – Where consequences for default for a prescribed period in a Statute are not mentioned, same cannot be held to be mandatory. (Paras 9, 9.9, 9.14 and 9.15)
(B) Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 – Sections 15 and 101 – Right of appeal – Though, right of appeal has been provided in Section 15(2) and Section 101(2) of Act against an order passed under Section 18(3) after preliminary assessment under Section 15 of the Act, however, neither any time has been fixed for filing appeal nor any provision is provided for condonation of delay in case need be – In order to make the Act workable and putting timelines for exercise of statutory right of appeal which always is there, it is appropriate to fill up this gap which otherwise does not go against scheme of Act – Period provided for filing appeal in Section 101(1) is 30 days and in case sufficient cause is shown power to condone delay has also been conferred on appellate authority – Timeline has also been provided for decision of appeal – Reasons in any order are ‘heart and soul’ and are helpful for next higher Court to examine the matter – Proceedings with reference to opinion of Board regarding inquiry or trial of CCL, either by Board or Children’s Court, stood culminated – Any further proceedings in that matter were non-est and without jurisdiction – Considering facts of case in hand, appellant deserves to be granted right of appeal. (Paras 13, 13.1, 15.5, 16 and 18)
Facts of the case:
Present appeal has been filed by Child in Conflict with Law [“CCL”] impugning Order dated 15.11.2023 passed in Criminal Revision Petition No. 1243 of 2023 passed by High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru. Vide aforesaid order, High Court set aside order dated 10.04.2023 passed by Additional Juvenile Justice Board, Bangalore City.
Findings of Court:
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.
Result : Appeal disposed of with directions.
1. Leave granted.
BRIEF FACTS
2. The present appeal has been filed by Child in Conflict with Law1 [Hereinafter referred to as “CCL”] impugning the order2 [Order dated 15.11.2023 passed in Criminal Revision Petition No. 1243 of 2023] passed by the High Court.3 [High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru]
3. Vide aforesaid order, the High Court set aside the order dated 10.04.2023 passed by the Board.4 [Additional Juvenile Justice Board, Bangalore City]
4. Briefly, the facts as available on record are that FIR5 [Crime No. 239/2021 dated 03.11.2021] 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, 2012.6 [Hereinafter referred to as “2012 Act”] After his apprehension on 03.11.2021, the CCL was produced before the Board. On 09.11.2021, he was released on bail. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed. The Board was called upon to decide the issue as to whether the CCL is to be tried by the Board or as an adult by the Children’s Court. The arguments in the matter were heard on 29.03.2022 by the Principal Magistrate and a Member of the Board. The matter was adjourned to 05.04.2022 for order.
4.1 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. 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 12.04.2022. No separate order, as recorded by the Member of the Board on 05.04.2022, was passed by him. On 12.04.2022 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.”
4.2 An application under Section 19 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 20157 [Hereinafter referred to as “the Act”] dated 18.10.2022 was filed by the complainant/mother of the victim before the Board for termination of proceedings and transferring the matter to the Children’s Court, to which objections were filed by the CCL.
4.3 Vide order dated 10.4.2023, the Board dismissed the application.
4.4 Impugning the aforesaid order, revision petition8 [Criminal Revision Petition No. 1243 of 2023] was filed by the Complainant before the High Court, which was allowed. The impugned order dated 10.04.2023 passed by the Board was set aside. The Board was directed to transmit the record to the Children’s Court for trial.
4.5 The aforesaid order is under challenge before this Court by the CCL.
ARGUMENTS OF THE APPELLANT
5. Mr. Sidharth Luthra and Mr. S. Nagamuthu, learned senior counsel appearing for the CCL, submitted that the practice of passing order while stating that the reasons will follow has been deprecated by this Court. It deprives the party concerned to avail of his appropriate remedy, when no reasons are available. In the case in hand, firstly the Principal Magistrate mentioned that the order was being passed by him and another Member of the Board. However, the Member of the Board did not sign the same. He only mentioned that he dis-agrees with the views of the Principal Magistrate and will pass a detailed order on the next date. The matter was kept for 12.04.2022. In support of the arguments, reliance was placed upon the judgment of this Court in Balaji Baliram Mupade and Another vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, (2021) 12 SCC 603.
5.1 It was further argued that the order passed on 05.04.2022 is not an order in the eyes of law. The matter being listed on 12.04.20
(1) Appeal, under Section 101(2) of Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 against order of Board passed under Section 15 of Act, can be filed within a period of 30 days. Appellate court can entertain appeal aft....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the mandatory nature of the preliminary assessment under section 15 of the Juvenile Justice Act, to be completed within the specified time frame as....
The court affirmed that the Board's reliance on social and counseling reports satisfied statutory requirements for trying a child as an adult under the Juvenile Justice Act.
The court emphasized the necessity of thorough psychological evaluations for juveniles in conflict with law, asserting that inadequate assessments violate statutory requirements under the Juvenile Ju....
The time limit of three months prescribed under S. 14(3) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, for conducting a preliminary assessment for heinous offences is directory....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
