# Child in Conflict with Law Through his Mother v. The State of Karnataka and Another

- **Citation:** 2024 INSC 387
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2024-05-07
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 2411 of 2024
- **Bench:** C.T. Ravikumar, Rajesh Bindal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/child-in-conflict-with-law-through-his-mother-v-the-state-of-karnataka-and-37695
- **Pages:** 52

## Headnote

(i) Whether the period provided for completion of preliminary
assessment u/s. 14(3) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection
of Children) Act, 2015 is mandatory or directory; (ii) 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; (iii) 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; (iv) 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; (v) 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.
Headnotes†
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
762
[2024] 5 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
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

## Text

_Characters 0–39,886 of 107,029. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39886 for what follows._

* Author
[2024] 5 S.C.R. 761 : 2024 INSC 387
Child in Conflict with Law Through his Mother
v.
The State of Karnataka and Another
(Criminal Appeal No. 2411 of 2024)
07 May 2024
[C.T. Ravikumar and Rajesh Bindal,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
(i) Whether the period provided for completion of preliminary
assessment u/s. 14(3) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection
of Children) Act, 2015 is mandatory or directory; (ii) 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; (iii) 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; (iv) 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; (v) 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.
Headnotes†
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
762
[2024] 5 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
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)]
[2024] 5 S.C.R.
763
Child in Conflict with Law Through his Mother v.
The State of Karnataka and Another
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
764
[2024] 5 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
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]
Case Law Cited
Topline Shoes Ltd. v. Corporation Bank [2002] 3 SCR 1167 :
(2002) 6 SCC 33 : 2002 INSC 287; Kailash v. Nanhku and Others
[2005] 3 SCR 289 : (2005) 4 SCC 480 : 2005 INSC 186; State of
Bihar and Others v. Bihar Rajya Bhumi Vikas Bank Samiti [2018]
7 SCR 1147 : (2018) 9 SCC 472 : 2018 INSC 648; C. Bright v.
District and Others [2020] 7 SCR 997 : (2021) 2 SCC 392 : 2020
INSC 633 - relied on.
Bhola v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2019) SCC OnLine MP 521;
Neeraj and Others v. State of Haryana (2005) SCC OnLine P&H
611; X v. State (2019) SCC OnLine Del 11164; CCL v. State (NCT)
of Delhi (2023) SCC OnLine Del 5063 - approved.
[2024] 5 S.C.R.
765
Child in Conflict with Law Through his Mother v.
The State of Karnataka and Another
Balaji Baliram Mupade and Another v. State of Maharashtra and
Others (2021) 12 SCC 603; Barun Chandra Thakur v. Master
Bholu & Anr. [2022] 10 SCR 595 : 2022 INSC 716; Shilpa Mittal
v. State (NCT of Delhi) [2020] 2 SCR 478 : (2020) 2 SCC 787 :
2020 INSC 25; SCG Contracts (India) (P) Ltd. v. K.S. Chamankar
Infrastructure (P) Ltd. [2019] 3 SCR 1050 : (2019) 12 SCC
210 : 2019 INSC 187; Afcons Infrastructure Limited and Another
v. Cherian Varkey Construction Company Private Limited and
Others (2010) 8 SCR 1053 : (2010) 8 SCC 24 : 2010 INSC 431;
Surjit Singh Kalra v. Union of India and Another [1991] 1 SCR
364 : (1991) 2 SCC 87 : 1991 INSC 36; Rajbir Singh Dalal (Dr.)
v. Chaudhari Devi Lal University, Sirsa and Another [2008] 11
SCR 992 : (2008) 9 SCC 284 : 2008 INSC 913; Central Bureau
of Investigation, Bank Securities and Fraud Cell v. Ramesh Gelli
and Others [2016] 1 SCR 762 : (2016) 3 SCC 788 : 2016 INSC
134 - referred to.
Books and Periodicals Cited
Principles of Statutory Interpretation by Justice G.P. Singh, 9th
Edn., pp.71-76 - referred to.
List of Acts
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015;
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Model Rules,
2016.
List of Keywords
Child in Conflict with Law (CCL); Juvenile Justice; Principal Magistrate
of the Board; Preliminary assessment report; Social investigation
report; Preliminary assessment u/s. 14(3) of the Juvenile Justice
(Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015; Children's Court' and
Court of Sessions; Time period to file an appeal u/s. 101(2) of
the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015;
Recording presence of the parties and/or their counsels.
Case Arising From
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 2411
of 2024
From the Judgment and Order dated 15.11.2023 of the High Court of
Karnataka at Bengaluru in CRLRP No. 1243 of 2023
766
[2024] 5 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Appearances for Parties
S. Nagamuthu, Sidharth Luthra, Sr. Advs., Ms. Sakshi Kakkar, Shakti
Singh, R Karthik, T Hari, Advs. for the Appellant.
Aman Panwar, A.A.G., V. N. Raghupathy, Manendra Pal Gupta,
Shivam Singh Baghel, Harsh Gattani, Advs. for the Respondents.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
Rajesh Bindal, J.
Leave granted.
BRIEF FACTS
2.
The present appeal has been filed by Child in Conflict with Law1
impugning the order2 passed by the High Court3.
3.
Vide aforesaid order, the High Court set aside the order dated
10.04.2023 passed by the Board4.
4.
Briefly, the facts as available on record are that FIR5 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, 20126. 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
1
Hereinafter referred to as "CCL".
2
Order dated 15.11.2023 passed in Criminal Revision Petition No. 1243 of 2023.
3
High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru.
4
Additional Juvenile Justice Board, Bangalore City.
5
Crime No. 239/2021 dated 03.11.2021.
6
Hereinafter referred to as "2012 Act".
[2024] 5 S.C.R.
767
Child in Conflict with Law Through his Mother v.
The State of Karnataka and Another
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 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 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
7
Hereinafter referred to as "the Act".
8
Criminal Revision Petition No. 1243 of 2023.
768
[2024] 5 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
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 disagrees 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 v. State of
Maharashtra and Others9.
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 12.04.2022,
the arguments were heard by two Members of the Board including
the Member who had earlier not signed the order. An order
was passed directing that the enquiry into the offence shall be
conducted by the Board, treating the CCL as juvenile. He further
referred to the documents placed on record with Crl. M.P. No.
28749 of 2024 that even the Principal Magistrate was present
in Court on that date. He had also heard the arguments but did
not sign the order. There was a well-considered order passed
on 12.04.2022, against which the only remedy available to the
victim was to file an appeal. However, the same was not availed
of within the period provided for under Section 101 of the Act.
5.2 It was further submitted that after the commencement of trial
before the Board, nearly six months thereafter an application
was filed for terminating the proceedings before the Board
and transferring the matter to the Children's Court, to which
objections were filed by the CCL. The Board appreciated the
position of law correctly and dismissed the application filed by
the mother of the victim.
5.3 It was submitted that even if for arguments' sake it is assumed
that the order passed on 12.04.2022 cannot be legally sustained.
It may, at the most, revive the order dated 05.04.2022 against
which the CCL has a remedy of filing an appeal. However, in
view of the developments which had taken place since the
passing of the order on 12.04.2022, the CCL has been deprived
9
(2021) 12 SCC 603
[2024] 5 S.C.R.
769
Child in Conflict with Law Through his Mother v.
The State of Karnataka and Another
of his remedy of appeal. If this Court is of the view that the
order passed on 05.04.2022 was an order, the CCL be given
liberty to avail remedy of appeal against the same, as with the
passing of the impugned order by the High Court, the CCL has
been left remediless against the order.
5.4 Section 15(1) of the Act provides for preliminary assessment
regarding mental status and physical capacity of the CCL, who
had allegedly committed heinous offence. In case the Board is
satisfied, that enquiry into the matter has to be conducted by
the Board, it shall follow the procedure as prescribed. However,
an order can also be passed in terms of Section 18(3) of the
Act for trial of the CCL by the Children's Court. It is only the
assessment, as to whether the Board or the Children's Court
has to hold inquiry or conduct trial.
5.5 Section 18(3) of the Act provides that after preliminary
assessment under Section 15 of the Act, the Board shall pass
an order that there is a need for trial of the CCL as an adult.
The records of the case have to be transferred for trial to the
Children's Court having jurisdiction.
5.6 Section 17 of the Act provides for procedure in relation to the
Board. It was submitted that the Board as such is not a court and
any proceeding conducted by the Board are not to be treated
as an order. It is merely an opinion. The Board, as defined in
section 2(10) of the Act, means the Board as constituted under
section 4 thereof. It shall consist of a Metropolitan Magistrate
or a Judicial Magistrate of First Class, not being the Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate or Chief Judicial Magistrate with at
least three years' experience and two social workers selected
in the manner prescribed, one of them has to be a woman.
5.7 Section 7(3) of the Act provides that there shall be at least
two members including the Principal Magistrate present at the
time of final disposal of a case or make an order under Section
18(3) of the Act.
5.8 It was further submitted that the appeal against an order passed
under Section 18(3) of the Act by the Board, directing trial of the
CCL by the Children's Court would lie to the Court of Sessions.
770
[2024] 5 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
5.9 The term Children's Court has been defined in Section 2(20) of the
Act. It means a Court established as such under the Commissions
for Protection of Child Rights Act, 200510 or a Special Court under
the 2012 Act, and where such Courts have not been designated,
the Court of Sessions having jurisdiction. The argument is, that
two separate authorities have been mentioned in sub-sections (1)
and (2) of Section 101 of the Act, otherwise separate provisions
were not required. This is the spirit of the law.
5.10 Section 19 of the Act deals with the powers of Children's
Court. After receipt of the preliminary assessment from the
Board under Section 15, the Children's Court may decide that
the child is to be tried as an adult or that there is no need for
trial of the CCL as an adult. An order passed by the Children's
Court is appealable before the High Court in terms of Section
101(5) of the Act.
5.11 Reference was made to Rule 10A of the Juvenile Justice
(Care and Protection of Children) Model Rules, 201611
which prescribes the procedure for preliminary assessment
regarding the age of the CCL under Section 14, and inquiry
by the Board or trial by the Children's Court under Section
15 of the Act.
5.12 Referring to the aforesaid scheme of the Act, it was submitted
that an assessment under Section 15 of the Act does not
envisage passing of an order. It is merely a satisfaction
recorded, and there is no final satisfaction recorded by the
Board on 05.04.2022 as next date of hearing had been given.
The matter had to be considered by the Board subsequently.
In fact, no order had been passed under Section 18(3) of the
Act. Subsequent orders passed by the Board showed that the
inquiry had already commenced. It was at a later stage that the
Complainant filed an application for termination of proceedings
before the Board, which was dismissed on 10.04.2023. The
order was appealable under Section 101(1) of the Act. However,
no appeal was filed. A revision was filed before the High Court
10
Hereinafter referred to as "2005 Act".
11
Hereinafter to be referred as "the 2016 Rules".
[2024] 5 S.C.R.
771
Child in Conflict with Law Through his Mother v.
The State of Karnataka and Another
under Section 397 read with Section 399 of the Cr.P.C., which
was not maintainable.
5.13 It was further argued that in terms of Section 14(3) of the
Act preliminary assessment under Section 15 thereof, has
to be made within a period of three months from the date
of first production of CCL before the Board. In the case in
hand, the child was produced before the Board for the first
time on 03.11.2021. The period of three months expired on
02.02.2022. No order could possibly be passed by the Board
on 05.04.2022. The result thereof is that the CCL is to be tried
by the Board and no order for his trial by the Children's Court
could be passed thereafter.
5.14 Reliance was placed upon the judgment of this Court in Barun
Chandra Thakur vs. Master Bholu & Anr.12 to submit that this
Court opined that the timelines provided for under the Act have
to be adhered to. If the time provided for in Section 14(3) for
preliminary assessment under Section 15 cannot be extended,
no order for trial of the CCL by the Children's Court can be
passed. Reliance was also placed upon judgment of this Court
in Shilpa Mittal vs. State (NCT of Delhi)13.
ARGUMENTS OF RESPONDENTS
6.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that even
after the order is passed by the Board transferring the matter to the
Children's Court for trial of the CCL, it can be reconsidered by the
Children's Court under Section 19(1) of the Act. Any order passed by
the Children's Court is appealable under Section 101(5) of the Act.
The scope of Section 101(1) and 101(2) is different. Sub-section (1)
deals with final orders, whereas sub-section (2) deals with preliminary
assessment. The trial of the offence is only by the Children's Court.
6.1 It was further submitted that, in terms of proviso to Section
15(1) of the Act, the Board may take assistance of experienced
psychologists, psycho-social workers or other experts to enable
the Board to reach a proper conclusion.
12
[2022] 10 SCR 595 : 2022 INSC 716
13
(2020) 2 SCR 478 : (2020) 2 SCC 787 : 2020 INSC 25
772
[2024] 5 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
6.2 In this case, a report dated 01.02.2022 has been submitted by
the Department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, NIMHANSDWCO. It was in response to a letter dated 12.01.2022 from the
Police Inspector, Marathahalli Police Station to the Psychiatrist,
NIMHANS Hospital, Bengaluru. Going backward, learned
counsel for the State referred to the interim order of the Board
dated 09.11.2021 in terms of which the Board had called for
the social investigation report of the child to enable the Board
to pass further order in terms of Section 18(3) of the Act.
However, no report was produced on 06.12.2021. The matter
was adjourned from 06.12.2021 to 11.01.2022, and thereafter
to 21.02.2022. The Social Investigation Report was received
by the Board on 19.02.2022.
6.3 The arguments on the issue of trial of the CCL by the Children's
Court or inquiry by the Board, were completed on 29.03.2022
and the matter was adjourned to 05.04.2022 for orders, when
the Principal Magistrate passed an order directing for trial
of the CCL by the Children's Court. Another member of the
Board did not append his signature and recorded that he had a
dissenting view and would pass the detailed order on the next
date i.e. 12.04.2022. In fact, in terms of Section 7(4) of the Act,
the proceeding for determination of the forum, which was to
conduct the inquiry or trial, concluded on that day itself, as the
opinion of the Principal Magistrate is final. The manner in which
the case was dealt with subsequently, is strange. Subsequent
order dated 12.04.2022 was passed by different members of
the Board. The entire proceedings were non-est. There was no
error in the application moved by the victim for termination of
proceedings before the Board and referring the matter to the
Children's Court, for which an order had already been passed
by the Principal Magistrate on 05.04.2022.
6.4 It was further argued that merely because proceedings under
Section 15 of the Act could not be concluded within three
months, by default the CCL will not be tried by the Board. The
provision cannot be held to be mandatory, as no consequence
of such a default has been provided in the Act. Even proviso to
Section 14(4) provides for extension of time in case the inquiry
as envisaged under Section 14(1) cannot be concluded within
the time prescribed.
[2024] 5 S.C.R.
773
Child in Conflict with Law Through his Mother v.
The State of Karnataka and Another
6.5 It was further submitted that though there is no direct judgment
of this Court in this matter dealing with Section 14(3) of the
Act. However, the learned counsel for the State referred to
the following judgments of the Madhya Pradesh, Punjab &
Haryana and Delhi High Courts Bhola vs State of Madhya
Pradesh14, Neeraj and Others vs State of Haryana15 and
X vs. State16.
6.6 It was further argued that the inquiry envisaged under Section
15 of the Act provides for taking opinion from experienced
psychologists or psycho-social workers or other experts. The
role of investigating officer is also relevant as he is investigating
the same. There can be intentional delays caused in the process
also to take benefit, in case by default CCL in a heinous
offence is to be tried by the Board. As in the case in hand the
investigating officer himself took about two months in getting
the report from NIMHANS. In such a situation the Board should
not be treated as powerless to extend the time for reasons to
be recorded. No doubt, in such a matter all the proceedings
have to be completed as expeditiously as possible.
6.7 It was further submitted that there is no merit in the arguments
raised by the learned counsel for the appellant, to give him
liberty to challenge the order dated 05.04.2022 in case he has
grievance against the same. Much water has flown thereafter.
All possible arguments were raised in the revision decided by
the High Court, and considered. To give liberty to the appellant
to raise the same before a lower authority would be an exercise
in futility. The same would rather result in delaying the process
further. The prayer is for the dismissal of the appeal.
DISCUSSION
7.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant
referred record. We have divided our judgment in different parts,
as mentioned below:
14
2019 SCC OnLine MP 521
15
2005 SCC OnLine P&H 611
16
2019 SCC OnLine Del 11164
774
[2024] 5 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Sl.
No.
HEADING
PARA
No(s).
PAGE
No(s).
I.
Relevant provisions.
8
16-37
II.
Whether the period provided
for completion of preliminary
assessment under section 14(3) of
the Act is mandatory or directory.
9-9.28
37-57
III.
Exercise of revisional power by the
High Court.
10-10.5
58-61
IV.
Anomaly in Section 101 of the
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection
of Children) Act, 2015.
(A) Regarding the terms used as
'Children's Court' and 'Court of
Sessions'.
(B) Time for filing appeal against
order of the Board under
Section 15 of the Act.
(C) Regarding second appeal.
11-12.2
13-13.2
14-14.1
62-66
66-67
67-68
V.
Validity of order passed by the Board
on 05.04.2022.
15-15.5
68-71
VI.
Remedy of appeal to appellant.
16-16.2
71-72
VII.
Additional issues.
17-17.3
72-74
VIII.
Reliefs and Directions.
18-19
74-77
I.
RELEVANT PROVISIONS
8.
The relevant provisions of various statutes and the Rules applicable
in the matter are extracted below:
EXTRACTS OF RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF THE
JUVENILE JUSTICE (CARE AND PROTECTION OF
CHILDREN) ACT, 2015
"Section 2(10). "Board" means a Juvenile Justice Board
constituted under section 4.
[2024] 5 S.C.R.
775
Child in Conflict with Law Through his Mother v.
The State of Karnataka and Another
Section 2(13). "child in conflict with law" means a child
who is alleged or found to have committed an offence and
who has not completed eighteen years of age on the date
of commission of such offence.
Section 2(20). "Children's Court" means a court established
under the Commissions for Protection of Child Rights Act,
2005 (4 of 2006) or a Special Court under the Protection
of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012),
wherever existing and where such courts have not been
designated, the Court of Sessions having jurisdiction to
try offences under the Act.
Section 2(22). "Committee" means Child Welfare
Committee constituted under section 27.
Section 2(23). "court" means a civil court, which has
jurisdiction in matters of adoption and guardianship and
may include the District Court, Family Court and City Civil
Courts.
Section 2(33). "heinous offences" includes the offences
for which the minimum punishment under the Indian Penal
Code (45 of 1860) or any other law for the time being in
force is imprisonment for seven years or more.
x x x
Section 4. Juvenile Justice Board.-
(1) xx xx
(2) A Board shall consist of a Metropolitan Magistrate
or a Judicial Magistrate of First Class not being Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate or Chief Judicial Magistrate
(hereinafter referred to as Principal Magistrate) with at least
three years experience and two social workers selected
in such manner as may be prescribed, of whom at least
one shall be a woman, forming a Bench and every such
Bench shall have the powers conferred by the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) on a Metropolitan
Magistrate or, as the case may be, a Judicial Magistrate
of First Class.
(3) to (7) xx xx
776
[2024] 5 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Section 7. Procedure in relation to Board.-
(1) & (2) xx xx
(3) A Board may act notwithstanding the absence of any
member of the Board, and no order passed by the Board
shall be invalid by the reason only of the absence of any
member during any stage of proceedings:
Provided that there shall be atleast two members including
the Principal Magistrate present at the time of final disposal
of the case or in making an order under sub-section (3)
of section 18.
(4) In the event of any difference of opinion among the
members of the Board in the interim or final disposal, the
opinion of the majority shall prevail, but where there is
no such majority, the opinion of the Principal Magistrate,
shall prevail.
x x x
Section 14. Inquiry by Board regarding child in conflict
with law.-(1) Where a child alleged to be in conflict with
law is produced before Board, the Board shall hold an
inquiry in accordance with the provisions of this Act and
may pass such orders in relation to such child as it deems
fit under sections 17 and 18 of this Act.
(2) The inquiry under this section shall be completed within
a period of four months from the date of first production of
the child before the Board, unless the period is extended,
for a maximum period of 2 more months by the Board,
having regard to the circumstances of the case and after
recording the reasons in writing for such extension.
(3) A preliminary assessment in case of heinous offences
under section 15 shall be disposed of by the Board within
a period of three months from the date of first production
of the child before the Board.
(4) If inquiry by the Board under sub-section (2) for petty
offences remains inconclusive even after the extended
period, the proceedings shall stand terminated:
[2024] 5 S.C.R.
777
Child in Conflict with Law Through his Mother v.
The State of Karnataka and Another
Provided that for serious or heinous offences, in case the
Board requires further extension of time for completion of
inquiry, the same shall be granted by the Chief Judicial
Magistrate or, as the case may be, the Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate, for reasons to be recorded in writing.
(5) xx xx
x x x
Section 15. Preliminary assessment into heinous
offences by Board.-(1) In case of a heinous offence
alleged to have been committed by a child, who has
completed or is above the age of sixteen years, the Board
shall conduct a preliminary assessment with regard to
his mental and physical capacity to commit such offence,
ability to understand the consequences of the offence and
the circumstances in which he allegedly committed the
offence, and may pass an order in accordance with the
provisions of sub-section (3) of section 18:
Provided that for such an assessment, the Board may take
the assistance of experienced psychologists or psychosocial workers or other experts.
Explanation.-For the purposes of this section, it is
clarified that preliminary assessment is not a trial, but is to
assess the capacity of such child to commit and understand
the consequences of the alleged offence.
(2) Where the Board is satisfied on preliminary assessment
that the matter should be disposed of by the Board, then
the Board shall follow the procedure, as far as may be,
for trial in summons case under the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974):
Provided that the order of the Board to dispose of the
matter shall be appealable under sub-section (2) of
section 101.
Provided further that the assessment under this section
shall be completed within the period specified in section 14.
x x x
778
[2024] 5 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Section 17. Orders regarding child not found to be
in conflict with law.-(1) Where a Board is satisfied on
inquiry that the child brought before it has not committed
any offence, then notwithstanding anything contrary
contained in any other law for the time being in force, the
Board shall pass order to that effect.
(2) In case it appears to the Board that the child referred to
in sub-section (1) is in need of care and protection, it may
refer the child to the Committee with appropriate directions.
Section 18. Orders regarding child found to be in
conflict with law.-
(1) & (2) xx xx
(3) Where the Board after preliminary assessment under
section 15 pass an order that there is a need for trial
of the said child as an adult, then the Board may order
transfer of the trial of the case to the Children's Court
having jurisdiction to try such offences.
Section 19. Powers of Children's Court.-(1) After the
receipt of preliminary assessment from the Board under
section 15, the Children's Court may decide that-
(i)
there is a need for trial of the child as an adult as
per the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 (2 of 1974) and pass appropriate orders after
trial subject to the provisions of this section and
section 21, considering the special needs of the
child, the tenets of fair trial and maintaining a child
friendly atmosphere;
(ii)
there is no need for trial of the child as an adult
and may conduct an inquiry as a Board and pass
appropriate orders in accordance with the provisions
of section 18.
(2) The Children's Court shall ensure that the final order,
with regard to a child in conflict with law, shall include an
individual care plan for the rehabilitation of child, including
follow up by the probation officer or the District Child
Protection Unit or a social worker.
[2024] 5 S.C.R.
779
Child in Conflict with Law Through his Mother v.
The State of Karnataka and Another
(3) The Children's Court shall ensure that the child who is
found to be in conflict with law is sent to a place of safety
till he attains the age of twenty-one years and thereafter,
the person shall be transferred to a jail:
Provided that the reformative services including educational
services, skill development, alternative therapy such as
counselling, behaviour modification therapy, and psychiatric
support shall be provided to the child during the period of
his stay in the place of safety.
(4) The Children's Court shall ensure that there is a periodic
follow up report every year by the probation officer or
the District Child Protection Unit or a social worker, as
required, to evaluate the progress of the child in the place
of safety and to ensure that there is no ill-treatment to the
child in any form.
(5) The reports under sub-section (4) shall be forwarded
to the Children's Court for record and follow up, as may
be required.
x x x
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.
(2) An appeal shall lie against an order of the Board passed
after making the preliminary assessment into a heinous
offence under section 15 of the Act, before the Court of
Sessions and the Court may, while deciding the appeal,
780
[2024] 5 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
take the assistance of experienced psychologists and
medical specialists other than those whose assistance has
been obtained by the Board in passing the order under
the said section.
(3) No appeal shall lie from any order of acquittal made by
the Board in respect of a child alleged to have committed
an offence other than the heinous offence by a child who
has completed or is above the age of sixteen years.
(4) No second appeal shall lie from any order of the Court
of Session, passed in appeal under this section.
(5) Any person aggrieved by an order of the Children's Court
may file an appeal before the High Court in accordance
with the procedure specified in the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974).
(6) & (7) xx xx
102.