Time period for completion of the preliminary assessment in Section 14(3) of the JJ Act is not mandatory but merely directory: Supreme Court
While hearing the Child in Conflict with Law through his Mother vs. The State of Karnataka and Another case on May 07, 2024, the Supreme Court (SC) of India held that the time period prescribed for completion of the preliminary assessment in Section 14(3) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (JJ Act) is not mandatory but merely directory. According to Section 14(3) of the JJ Act, “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.” The matter was heard by a two-judge bench consisting of Justice CT Ravikumar and Justice Rajesh Bindal.
The SC bench stated that “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, in our opinion 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. If we see the facts of the case in hand, the investigating officer had taken about two months’ time in getting the report from the NIMHANS. Where consequences for default for a prescribed period in a Statute are not mentioned, the same cannot be held to be mandatory."
It further held that the time period provided in Section 14(3) could be extended by the Chief Judicial Magistrate or the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, for the reasons to be recorded in writing. The SC bench pronounced in the judgment that “In our opinion, the guidance as is evident from sub-section (4) of section 14 of the Act enabling the Chief Judicial Magistrate or Chief Metropolitan Magistrate to extend the period of inquiry as envisaged under Section 14(1), shall apply for extension of period as envisaged in sub-section (3) also. Such an extension can be granted for a limited period for the reasons to be recorded in writing. While considering the prayer for extension of time, the delay in receipt of opinion of the experts shall be a relevant factor. This shall be in the spirit of the Act and giving the same a purposive meaning.”
During the proceedings, the SC considered the views of Madhya Pradesh High Court, Punjab & Haryana High Court, and Delhi High Court in Bhola vs State of Madhya Pradesh, Neeraj and Others vs State of Haryana, and X (Through his Elder Brother) vs State respectively along with other judgments. The top court also pointed out certain directions and reliefs while pronouncing the judgment and ordered to send the copy of the judgment to all the Registrar Generals of High Courts for further circulation amongst the Judicial Officers and the Members of the Juvenile Justice Boards, the Directors of the National Judicial Academy and the State Judicial Academies.
In this case, FIR was registered against the CCL (Child in Conflict with the Law) for the commission of offences under Sections 376(i), and 342 of the IPC and Sections 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. After his apprehension, the CCL was produced before the Board and he was released on bail. 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. Further, the Principal Magistrate of the Board passed an order holding that as per the 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: “I am having a dissenting view to…order. I will pass detailed order on next date of hearing.”
The matter was apparently heard afresh by two Members of the Board without there being the Principal Magistrate. The order said that as per the preliminary assessment report and the social investigation report, the inquiry regarding the alleged offence committed by the CCL has to be conducted by the Board as a juvenile. Following this, an application 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. The Board dismissed the application and a revision petition was filed in the High Court by the complainant, which was allowed. The impugned order passed by the Board was set aside and the Board was directed to transmit the record to the Children’s Court for trial. The matter was therefore mentioned before the Supreme Court which held that the time prescribed for completion of the preliminary assessment in Section 14(3) of the JJ Act is not mandatory.
