Bombay High Court Dismisses Revision Against Transfer of Juvenile to Adult Court in POCSO Case. Preliminary assessment under Section 15 of JJ Act, 2015 upheld as valid and unbiased.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: NAGPUR In Favour of Prosecution
  • 3
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The case arises from a criminal revision application filed by Mustafa Khan Jabbar Khan, a juvenile in conflict with law, challenging the judgment and order dated 13.01.2020 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Children's Court, Darwha, which dismissed his appeal against the order dated 01.04.2019 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB), Yavatmal. The JJB had conducted a preliminary assessment under Section 15 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (JJ Act) and ordered that the applicant be tried as an adult for heinous offences under the Indian Penal Code, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, and Information Technology Act, 2000. The applicant was one of nine accused in Crime No. 737/2018 for offences including rape of a minor. The informant, father of the victim, had filed an application (Exh.52) before the JJB seeking inquiry under Section 15 read with Section 18(3) of the JJ Act to try the applicant and another juvenile as adults. The JJB partly allowed the application, issued summons, and referred the juveniles to a psychiatrist for assessment of mental and physical capacity. After considering the psychiatrist's report and submissions, the JJB passed the order on 01.04.2019 directing that the applicant be tried as an adult. The applicant appealed to the Children's Court, which dismissed the appeal. In the revision, the applicant argued that the preliminary assessment was conducted in a biased manner, that the Presiding Officer of the JJB was biased, and that he was denied a fair hearing. The High Court examined the record and found that the JJB had properly conducted the preliminary assessment, considered the psychiatrist's report, and given the applicant an opportunity to be heard. The court held that there was no material to establish bias or procedural irregularity. The revision was dismissed, and the order of the JJB was upheld.

Headnote

A) Juvenile Justice - Preliminary Assessment - Section 15 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 - Transfer to Adult Court - The court examined the validity of the preliminary assessment conducted by the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) under Section 15 of the JJ Act, 2015, for heinous offences. The JJB had referred the juvenile to a psychiatrist and considered the report before passing the order. The High Court held that the preliminary assessment was conducted in accordance with law and the JJB had correctly applied its mind. The revision against the order was dismissed. (Paras 1-20)

B) Juvenile Justice - Bias of Presiding Officer - Section 15 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 - The applicant alleged bias on the part of the Presiding Officer of the JJB. The court found no material to substantiate the allegation of bias. The mere fact that the Presiding Officer had earlier dealt with the case in a different capacity did not establish bias. The court held that the proceedings were fair and the order was not vitiated. (Paras 21-30)

C) Juvenile Justice - Right to Fair Hearing - Section 15 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 - The applicant contended that he was not given a fair hearing as the JJB did not provide an opportunity to cross-examine the psychiatrist. The court rejected this contention, noting that the preliminary assessment is an inquiry and not a trial, and the JJB had considered the report and the submissions of the parties. The court held that there was no violation of natural justice. (Paras 31-35)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the preliminary assessment under Section 15 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, conducted by the Juvenile Justice Board, and the subsequent order transferring the juvenile to the Children's Court for trial as an adult, was legally valid and not vitiated by bias or procedural irregularity.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The revision application is dismissed. The order of the JJB dated 01.04.2019 and the judgment of the Children's Court dated 13.01.2020 are upheld.

Law Points

  • Preliminary assessment under Section 15 of Juvenile Justice Act
  • 2015
  • Transfer of juvenile to adult court for heinous offences
  • Scope of revision against preliminary assessment
  • Bias of Presiding Officer
  • Right to fair hearing
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2023 LawText (BOM) (06) 198

Criminal Revision Application No. 32 of 2020

2023-06-28

G. A. Sanap, J.

Mr. Parvez W. Mirza for applicant, Mr. A. R. Chutke, A.P.P. for non-applicant no.1/State, Mr. R. M. Daga for non-applicant no.2

Mustafa Khan Jabbar Khan

State of Maharashtra and Ravindra Bhawarilalji Challani

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Criminal revision application challenging the order of the Children's Court dismissing appeal against JJB order transferring juvenile to adult court.

Remedy Sought

The applicant sought to set aside the order of the JJB and the Children's Court and to be tried as a juvenile.

Filing Reason

The applicant challenged the preliminary assessment under Section 15 of JJ Act, 2015, alleging bias and procedural irregularities.

Previous Decisions

The JJB passed order dated 01.04.2019 directing trial as adult; the Children's Court dismissed appeal on 13.01.2020.

Issues

Whether the preliminary assessment under Section 15 of JJ Act, 2015 was conducted in accordance with law? Whether the Presiding Officer of the JJB was biased? Whether the applicant was denied a fair hearing?

Submissions/Arguments

The applicant argued that the JJB did not conduct a proper preliminary assessment and that the Presiding Officer was biased. The applicant contended that he was not given an opportunity to cross-examine the psychiatrist. The State and informant supported the JJB order, submitting that the assessment was proper and the applicant was given a hearing.

Ratio Decidendi

The preliminary assessment under Section 15 of the JJ Act, 2015 is an inquiry, not a trial. The JJB must consider the psychiatrist's report and give the juvenile an opportunity to be heard. The order transferring the juvenile to adult court for heinous offences is valid if the JJB applies its mind to the material on record. Allegations of bias must be substantiated by material on record.

Judgment Excerpts

The JJB had conducted the preliminary assessment in accordance with law and had correctly applied its mind. There is no material to substantiate the allegation of bias on the part of the Presiding Officer. The preliminary assessment is an inquiry and not a trial, and the JJB had considered the report and the submissions of the parties.

Procedural History

Crime No. 737/2018 registered on report of informant. Informant filed application (Exh.52) before JJB on 03.12.2018 for inquiry under Section 15 read with Section 18(3) of JJ Act. JJB partly allowed application on 11.03.2019, issued summons, and referred juveniles to psychiatrist. JJB passed order on 01.04.2019 directing trial as adult. Applicant appealed to Children's Court, which dismissed appeal on 13.01.2020. Applicant filed criminal revision before High Court on 28.06.2023.

Acts & Sections

  • Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015: Section 15, Section 18(3)
  • Indian Penal Code, 1860: Section 376(3), 376DA, 376(2)(j)(n), 354D, 504, 506, 34
  • Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012: Section 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 15
  • Information Technology Act, 2000: Section 67A, 67B, 66E
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Revision Against Transfer of Juvenile to Adult Court in POCSO Case. Preliminary assessment under Section 15 of JJ Act, 2015 upheld as valid and unbiased.
Related Judgement
High Court Madras High Court Dismisses Revision Against Order Allowing Withdrawal of Partition Suit with Liberty to File Fresh Suit. Trial Court's Discretion Under Order XXIII Rule 1 CPC Upheld as No Perversity or Jurisdictional Error Found.