Allahabad High Court
Biru Chaurasia vs State Of U.P. And Anr. on 13 October, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:187300
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1508 of 2019
Biru Chaurasia
.....Revisionist(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And Anr.
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s)
:
R.K. Shahi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
Brij Bhushan Prasad Shrivastava, G.A., Virendra Nath Pandey
Court No. - 80
HON'BLE ACHAL SACHDEV, J.
1. Counter affidavit filed by the learned A.G.A. is taken on record.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the revisionist, the learned AGA for the State and learned counsel for the respondent number 2.
3. The present criminal revision has been filed to set aside the judgement/order dated 21.02.2018 passed by the Principal Magistrate/Juvenile Justice Board, Deoria in Case Crime No.233 of 2016 (State of U.P. Vs. Biru), under Section 376 I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 POCSO Act, P.S. Kotwali Deoria, District Deoria allowing the application under Section 15 of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2015 preferred by the opposite party no.2 and order dated 12.02.2019 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Deoria in Criminal Appeal No.03 of 2018 (Biru Chaurasiya Vs. State of U.P. and another) and with further prayer to stay the effect and operation of the judgement and order dated 21.02.2018 passed in the aforesaid case.
4. The learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the impugned order passed in appeal by 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Deoria in Criminal Appeal No.03 of 2018 vide 12-02-2019 under Section 101(2) of The Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection) Act, 2015 suffers from material illegality since the appellate court failed to take notice of the fact that order dated 21-02-2018 under appeal passed by the Principal Magistrate/Juvenile Justice Board suffered from patent illegality, it being in violation of express provisions contained in Sections 14(2) and 15(1) of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection) Act, 2015 which prescribes a fixed period of 4 months for completion of inquiry (in case of petty offences) and 3 months (where the child in conflict with law has been accused with heinous offence and is above age of 16 years but below 18 years) and the statutory period prescribed may be extended by a further period 2 months in cases of heinous offences under Section 15(1) by the CJM/CMM after recording his satisfaction and reason in regard to extension of stipulated time period for completion of inquiry.
5. In the present case, the learned Principal Magistrate of the Juvenile Justice Board had by its order dated 28-04-2016 , had held that the child in conflict with law was a juvenile on the date of commission of the alleged offence after prelying upon the date of birth mentioned in the High School Certificate of the Child in conflict with the law and had given a finding to the effect that on the date of offence, the child in conflict of law was above the age of 16 years old (17 years 07 months 3 days).
6. Thereafter, after a period of about 1 year 11 months 4 days on an application of informant/complainant's counsel, the learned Principal Magistrate while allowing the application, opined that the preliminary assessment of child in conflict with law was necessary in terms of provisions contained in Section 15(1) of The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2015,the same being being in violation of express stipulations given in Sections 14(2) and 15(1) of the Act which prescribes a maximum period of 5 months from the date of first production of child in conflict with law before the Juvenile Justice Board. Being aggrieved, an appeal was preferred before the Court of Sessions, Deoria against the said order of the Juvenile Justice Board but the appeal that was rejected vide order dated 12-02-2019. Hence the present revision.
7. The learned AGA for the State and learned counsel for the respondent have submitted that the order under challenge need not be interfered with. They have further submitted that the child in conflict with law has been accused of offence under Section 376 IPC and Sections 3/4 of the POCSO Act, 2012,Csae Crime number 233/2016,Police Station Kotwali, District Deoria. The age of child in conflict with law on the date of offence is above 16 years of age but below 18 years and has been accused with commission of a heinous offence as defined in Section 2(33) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2015 and it becomes necessary to make a preliminary assessment of the child to do complete justice without loosing sight of the welfare of the child in conflict with law.
8. In light of rival submissions of the contest, it is imperative to go through the relevant provisions of The Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection) Act, 2015 and rules framed thereunder-:
"Section 14 of the Act lays down the procedure that the Principal Magistrate of the Juvenile Justice Board must adhere to when the child in conflict with law is brought for the first time before the Juvenile Justice Board. The provisions are being reproduced for the sake of brevity-:
"Section 14 of the Act- 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 15 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 two 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:
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) The Board shall take the following steps to ensure fair and speedy inquiry, namely:? (a) at the time of initiating the inquiry, the Board shall satisfy itself that the child in conflict with law has not been subjected to any ill-treatment by the police or by any other person, including a lawyer or probation officer and take corrective steps in case of such ill-treatment;
(b) in all cases under the Act, the proceedings shall be conducted in simple manner as possible and care shall be taken to ensure that the child, against whom the proceedings have been instituted, is given child-friendly atmosphere during the proceedings;
(c) every child brought before the Board shall be given the opportunity of being heard and participate in the inquiry; (d) cases of petty offences, shall be disposed of by the Board through summary proceedings, as per the procedure prescribed under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974);
(e) inquiry of serious offences shall be disposed of by the Board, by following the procedure, for trial in summons cases under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974);
(f) inquiry of heinous offences,?
(i) for child below the age of sixteen years as on the date of commission of an offence shall be disposed of by the Board under clause (e);
(ii) for child above the age of sixteen years as on the date of commission of an offence shall be dealt with in the manner prescribed under section 15.
Section 15 of the Act- 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 psycho-social 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.
18. Orders regarding child found to be in conflict with law.??
..(3) Where the Board after preliminary assessment under Section 15 of the Act 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."
9. Since the preliminary assessment of the Child in conflict of law has to be undertaken by the Juvenile Justice Board/Children Court/Sessions Judge keeping in view the welfare of the child, it is the bounden duty of the Juvenile Justice Board under s.15(1)/Sessions Judge sitting in appeal under Section 101(2) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2015 to strictly comply with the statutory provisions contained in Section 15(1) /101(2) as and where applicable.
Section 15 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (JJ Act) empowers the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) to conduct a preliminary assessment for children in conflict with law (aged 16?18 years) alleged to have committed a heinous offence (as defined under Section 2(33), e.g., murder, rape, or offences punishable with minimum 7 years imprisonment). The assessment evaluates the child's:
- Mental and physical capacity to commit the offence.
- Ability to understand its consequences.
- Circumstances of the offence.
These provisions balance juvenile rehabilitation with accountability for serious crimes.
10. But there is a time limit for passing the order in an inquiry with regard to preliminary assessment under Section 15 of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection) Act, 2015. The time limit is governed by Section 14(3) of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection) Act, 2015, which mandates that the preliminary assessment (and consequent order) under Section 15 must be completed within 3 months from the date of the child's first production before the Juvenile Justice Board. The Juvenile Justice Board in case of petty offence can extend this by up to 2 more months (total 6 months) for reasons recorded in writing, with approval from the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) or Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (CMM) but in case of serious or heinous offences, the power to extend the period of inquiry vests in the Chief Judicial Magistrate. The short timeline ensures swift, child-friendly proceedings, minimizing prolonged uncertainty for the child. Delays beyond this can vitiate the process, if not justified.
11. For the sake of brevity, the provisions contained in Section 101(2) are being reproduced below:-
"Section 101. Appeals-? (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, 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."
12. Rule 10A of The Juvenile Justice Rule is being reproduced which lays down that the conduct of preliminary Assessment of Child in conflict with law is a mandatory provision is a prerequisite condition before passing any order adversely affecting the rights of a child under The Juvenile Justice(Care & Protection Act), 2015.
10 A. Preliminary assessment into heinous offences by Board.- (1) The Board shall in the first instance determine whether the child is of sixteen years of age or above; if not, it shall proceed as per provisions of section 14 of the Act.
2) For the purpose of conducting a preliminary assessment in case of heinous offences, the Board may take the assistance of psychologists or psycho-social workers or other experts who have experience of working with children in difficult circumstances. A panel of such experts may be made available by the District Child Protection Unit, whose assistance can be taken by the Board or could be accessed independently.
(3) While making the preliminary assessment, the child shall be presumed to be innocent unless proved otherwise.
(4) Where the Board, after preliminary assessment under section 15 of the Act, passes an order that there is a need for trial of the said child as an adult, it shall assign reasons for the same and the copy of the order shall be provided to the child forthwith.
13. Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Barun Chandra Thakur v. Master Bholu (2022 SCC ONLINE SC 870), clarified that the 3-month period under Section 14(3) is directory, not mandatory. This means strict adherence is ideal, but minor delays do not automatically invalidate the order if they serve the child's best interests and do not prejudice rights. Courts must examine if the delay caused harm (e.g., denial of fair hearing or extended detention without cause). The ruling emphasizes the Juvenile Justice Act's rehabilitative focus over rigid timelines, but extensions must still follow procedural safeguards.
14. The Juvenile Justice Board cannot routinely pass an order under Section 15 after stipulated period from the child's first production before the Juvenile Justice Board, as it exceeds the statutory 3-month limit (even with the maximum 2-month extension, totaling 5 months). Exceeding this without exceptional justification could render the order invalid on grounds of procedural irregularity, However,if the delay is bonafide (e.g., due to unavoidable circumstances like expert unavailability) and no prejudice is shown, courts may uphold it under the "directory" principle from the 2022 Supreme Court ruling.
15. Hon'ble Supreme Court held further that Section 15 preliminary assessment determines whether a child aged 16-18 faces a maximum penalty of life imprisonment and future disqualifications, therefore strict adherence to natural justice is necessary.
16. The expert report, as envisaged under Section 15(1) and Section 101(2) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2015 is mandatory and non-discretionary for heinous offence assessments.
17. Perusal of the impugned order under revision clearly shows that the Sessions Court was in agreement with the view of the Principal Magistrate Juvenile Justice Board that preliminary assessment of the Child in Conflict with the Law was necessary in order to ascertain that the child in conflict with the law had mental capacity to understand the consequences of the offence.
18. At this juncture, it is important to note that the present revision is directed against an order passed in appeal wherein the order of Principal Magistrate of Juvenile Justice Board to hold a preliminary assessment of a child in conflict with law and accused of a heinous offence was assailed but no preliminary assessment had been conducted as yet. The appeal, prima facie was pre-mature since no preliminary assessment had been made by the Juvenile Justice Board in terms of s.15(1) of The Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection Act),2015 as no final order had been passed by the Principal Magistrate of the Juvenile Justice Board in regard to preliminary assessment of the child in conflict with law.
19. There is no procedural lapse on part of the appellate court as the appeal itself was pre mature and the order of the appellate court needs no interference.
20. The revision petition is dismissed.
21. The order dated 12.02.2019 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Deoria in Criminal Appeal No.03 of 2018 (Biru Chaurasiya Vs. State of U.P. and another) affirmed.
(Achal Sachdev,J.) October 13, 2025 Kamarjahan/Zafar