The only issue involved in this appeal is regarding non-compliance with the requirement of clause (i) of sub- section 1 of Section 19 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (for short “JJ Act”)by the Children’s Court. An application was made by the appellant before the Children’s Court (a Special Court constituted for trials of offences under the MPDVPK Act) seeking compliance with the requirements of Sub- section 1 of Section 19 read with Sections 6 and 15 of the JJ Act. – (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 as assessment, the Board may take the assistance of experienced psychologists or psycho-social workers or other experts.
Based on the preliminary assessment, sub-section 3 of Section 18 empowers the Juvenile Justice Board to pass an order for transferring the trial of the case to the Children’s Court which has jurisdiction to try such offences. – (1) After the receipt of preliminary assessment from the Board under section 15, the Children’s Court may decide that – 4 (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.” (Emphasis added) 9. Clause (ii) provides that after examining whether there is a need for a trial of the child as an adult, if the children’s Court comes to the conclusion that there is no need for the trial of the child as an adult, instead of sending back the matter to the Board, the Court itself is empowered to conduct an inquiry and pass appropriate orders in accordance with provisions of Section 18 of the JJ Act. The observation of the High Court that the order passed under sub-section (3) of Section 18 has attained finality completely ignores that the order under sub- section (3) of Section 18 is not a final adjudication on the question of trying the child as an adult. By setting aside the impugned orders, we direct the Special Court to comply with the requirement of sub- section 1 of Section 19 of the JJ Act.
