Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 150 (PNJ)

Suraj v. State of Haryana

2023-01-11

G.S.SANDHAWALIA, HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN

body2023
JUDGMENT Harpreet Kaur Jeewan, J - An application under Section 14 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children), Act, 2000, read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, has been filed praying for referring the matter to the Juvenile Justice Board (hereinafter referred to as "the Board") for holding an enquiry and declaring Suraj (applicant-appellant) as juvenile. 2. Facts relevant for the adjudication of the present application are as follows: i. On 06.02.2016, an information was given in the Police Station Surajkund, District Faridabad, that a bad act has been committed upon the victim X and thereafter, officer in the Women Cell met the victim X and the parents. The victim X informed that she (victim) was a student of 5th standard and the applicant who was residing in her neighbourhood was on visiting terms. [About 02 months ago when her parents had gone to their work, at about 02:00 p.m., applicant Suraj along with his friend Akram came to her house. Firstly, Suraj committed the bad act with her against her wishes and thereafter, Akram committed the said bad act]. Both have threatened her that in case she narrates the incident to anyone, they would kill her and her family members. Due to fear, she did not disclose the facts to anyone. Ultimately, she disclosed the facts to her mother. ii. FIR No. 61 dated 10.02.2016 under Section 452, 376-D, 506 of the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act was registered on the basis of the statement of the victim. Her statement was recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. by the Illaqua Magistrate and her medical examination was also conducted. The applicant as well as Akram were also arrested and subjected to medical examination. iii. After completion of the investigation, 'challan' under section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the POCSO Act) and Sections 452/376- D/506 of the IPC was presented before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad, whereas separate 'challan' was presented against the juvenile Akram before the Board. Charge sheet was issued on 12.05.2016 against the applicant for commission of the offence under Section 452 read with Section 34, 376-D, 506 of the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act. iv. Charge sheet was issued on 12.05.2016 against the applicant for commission of the offence under Section 452 read with Section 34, 376-D, 506 of the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act. iv. An application was moved by the applicant on 17.06.2016 to declare him juvenile before the said Court mentioning his date of birth as 04.04.1998. The said application was dismissed, on the ground that the applicant could not produce any document in support of the date of birth as 04.04.1998. It was observed that Mark-A is not original, Mark-B is single page of the bank account and Mark-C is copy of certificate from the school but no witness from the school or from the bank has been examined to prove the said documents. (Even the parents had not appeared before the Court to confirm the date of birth. This led the Court to decline the application. v. The applicant was tried as an adult. vi. After recording 16 witnesses on behalf of the prosecution, recording the statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. the applicant was convicted and the sentence was awarded under Sections 376-D/506 and 452 read with Section 34 of the IPC. 3. The applicant preferred an appeal against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court. During the pendency of the appeal, he filed an application for suspension of sentence. 4. During the pendency of the said appeal, the applicant has also filed the present application for referring the matter back to the Board for holding an enquiry and declaring the applicant Suraj as Juvenile. The certificate of matriculation/secondary examination school Session 2014- 16 of the applicant has been submitted as Annexure A-1 along with the present application. 5. Reply to the present application was filed by the State by way of an affidavit of Sh. Sukhbir Singh, HPS, Assistant Commissioner of Police, Badkhal, District, Faridabad. A preliminary objection was taken that the trial Court has already considered the copy of the matriculation certificate. The said copies were not considered by the trial Court as the original were not provided or the original were not available with the applicant during enquiry and these facts were admitted by him in the cross-examination (Annexure A-2). The conviction has already been recorded. Prayer for dismissal of the application was made. 6. We have heard Mr. The said copies were not considered by the trial Court as the original were not provided or the original were not available with the applicant during enquiry and these facts were admitted by him in the cross-examination (Annexure A-2). The conviction has already been recorded. Prayer for dismissal of the application was made. 6. We have heard Mr. Randeep S. Dhull, Advocate, for the applicant, Mr. Hitesh Pandit, Addl. A.G., Haryana for the respondent and perused the material on record. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that in the matriculation certificate (Annexure A-1), the date of birth of the applicant recorded as 04.04.1998. Thus, the applicant was less than 18 years of age at the time of the alleged incident and was a juvenile as defined under Section 2 (k) of the Act of 2000. It was further submitted that as per the provisions of Section 14 of the Act of 2000, an enquiry was required to be conducted by the Board regarding the claim of juvenility and the procedure prescribed under Section 7-A of the Act of 2000 was required to be followed. The ld counsel for applicant further submitted that as per the provisions of Section 7-A of the Act of 2000, the claim of juvenility can be raised before any Court and it can be raised at any stage even after the final disposal of the case. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Abuzar Hossain @ Gulam Hossain v. State of West Bengal (2012) 10 SCC 489 and Barun ChandraThakur v. Master Bholu and another 2022 (10) Scale 120 . 8. On the other hand, Mr. Hitesh Pandit, Addl. A.G., Haryana, submitted that the documents alleged to have been relied upon by the applicant regarding his age has already been considered by the trial Court and the enquiry has already been held by the trial Court. The order passed by the trial Court holding that the applicant had failed to prove that he is juvenile has become final. The said order was never challenged. The trial has already been concluded. The applicant has been convicted and sentenced. The order passed by the trial Court holding that the applicant had failed to prove that he is juvenile has become final. The said order was never challenged. The trial has already been concluded. The applicant has been convicted and sentenced. It was further submitted that the applicant has been awarded life imprisonment and even if he would have been tried by the Children court for allegations of heinous crime, it was within the purview of the Children court to award life imprisonment in view of facts of the case. At this stage, no purpose would be served by remanding the matter back for conducting fresh enquiry. 9. We have considered the aforesaid arguments and perused the record carefully. 10. The following questions would require determination in the present case: I. Whether the claim of juvenility can be raised during the appeal without challenging the order of dismissal of such a claim passed by the Trial Court? II. Whether entertaining a claim of juvenility at appellate stage would be a futile exercise in the present case as the sentence awarded by Trial Court treating the accused as adult would be no different than the sentence awarded to a juvenile by the JJB or by the Children Court? Question No I 11. Before coming of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 2015) the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 2000) was in force. At the time, when occurrence in the present case took place, the Act of 2015 was in force. The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Model Rules, 2016, were framed under the Act of 2015 (hereinafter referred to as the Model Rules of 2016), vide G.S.R.898, dated 21st September, 2016, published in the Gazette of India, Extra, Pt.II, Section 3 (i), dated 21st September, 2016. 12. We have examined the relevant provisions of the Act of 2015 to determine this question. Section 9 of the Act of 2015 provides, if a person claims Juvenility, who is alleged to have committed an offence when brought before a court other than a Board (Juvenile Justice Board), it is mandatory for that court to make an enquiry to determine the age of such person. Section 9 of the Act of 2015 provides, if a person claims Juvenility, who is alleged to have committed an offence when brought before a court other than a Board (Juvenile Justice Board), it is mandatory for that court to make an enquiry to determine the age of such person. The said section further provides that claim of juvenility can be raised before any court and even after disposal of the case. Section 9 of the Act of 2015 reads as under: "9. Procedure to be followed by a Magistrate who has not been empowered under this Act 1. When a Magistrate, not empowered to exercise the powers of the Board under this Act is of the opinion that the person alleged to have committed the offence and brought before him is a child, he shall, without any delay, record such opinion and forward the child immediately along with the record of such proceedings to the Board having jurisdiction. 2. In case a person alleged to have committed an offence claims before a court other than a Board, that the person is a child or was a child on the date of commission of the offence, or if the court itself is of the opinion that the person was a child on the date of commission of the offence, the said court shall make an inquiry, take such evidence as maybe necessary (but not an affidavit) to determine the age of such person, and shall record a finding on the matter, stating the age of the person as nearly as may be: Provided that such a claim may be raised before any court and it shall be recognised at any stage, even after final disposal of the case, and such a claim shall be determined in accordance with the provisions contained in this Act and the rules made thereunder even if the person has ceased to be a child on or before the date of commencement of this Act. 3. If the court finds that a person has committed an offence and was a child on the date of commission of such offence, it shall forward the child to the Board for passing appropriate orders and the sentence, if any, passed by the court shall be deemed to have no effect. 4. 3. If the court finds that a person has committed an offence and was a child on the date of commission of such offence, it shall forward the child to the Board for passing appropriate orders and the sentence, if any, passed by the court shall be deemed to have no effect. 4. In case a person under this section is required to be kept in protective custody, while the person's claim of being a child is being inquired into, such person may be placed, in the intervening period in a place of safety." (Emphasis applied) 13. Similar provision was there under the Act of 2000. Section 7-A of the Act of 2000 as inserted by Act 33 of 2006 w.e.f. 22.08.2006 provides as follows:- "7A. Procedure to be followed when claim of juvenility is raised before any court.- 1. Whenever a claim of juvenility is raised before any court or a court is of the opinion that an accused person was a juvenile on the date of commission of the offence, the court shall make an inquiry, take such evidence as may be necessary (but not an affidavit) so as to determine the age of such person, and shall record a finding whether the person is a juvenile or a child or not, stating his age as nearly as may be: Provided that a claim of juvenility may be raised before any court and it shall be recognised at any stage, even after final disposal of the case, and such claim shall be determined in terms of the provisions contained in this Act and the rules made thereunder, even if the juvenile has ceased to be so on or before the date of commencement of this Act. 2. If the court finds a person to be a juvenile on the date of commission of the offence under sub-section (1), it shall forward the juvenile to the Board for passing appropriate orders and the sentence, if any, passed by a court shall be deemed to have no effect." (emphasis applied) 14. In Abuzar Hossains ' case (supra), the Supreme Court summarized the position with regard to the stage at which the plea of juvenility can be raised and the procedure to be followed for determining the age as under as per the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children), Act, 2000:- 36. In Abuzar Hossains ' case (supra), the Supreme Court summarized the position with regard to the stage at which the plea of juvenility can be raised and the procedure to be followed for determining the age as under as per the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children), Act, 2000:- 36. Now, we summarize the position which is as under: "(i) A claim of juvenility may be raised at any stage even after final disposal of the case. It may be raised for the first time before this Court as well after final disposal of the case. The delay in raising the claim of juvenility cannot be a ground for rejection of such claim. The claim of juvenility can be raised in appeal even if not pressed before the trial court and can be raised for the first time before this Court though not pressed before the trial court and in appeal court. (ii) For making a claim with regard to juvenility after conviction, the claimant must produce some material which may prima facie satisfy the court that an inquiry into the claim of juvenility is necessary. Initial burden has to be discharged by the person who claims juvenility. (iii) As to what materials would prima facie satisfy the court and/or are sufficient for discharging the initial burden cannot be catalogued nor can it be laid down as to what weight should be given to a specific piece of evidence which may be sufficient to raise presumption of juvenility but the documents referred to in Rule 12(3)(a)(i) to (iii) shall definitely be sufficient for prima facie satisfaction of the court about the age of the delinquent necessitating further enquiry under Rule 12. The statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code is too tentative and may not by itself be sufficient ordinarily to justify or reject the claim of juvenility. The credibility and/or acceptability of the documents like the school leaving certificate or the voters' list, etc. obtained after conviction would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no hard and fast rule can be prescribed that they must be prima facie accepted or rejected. In Akbar Sheikh and Pawan these documents were not found prima facie credible while in Jitendra Singh the documents viz., school leaving certificate, marksheet and the medical report were treated sufficient for directing an inquiry and verification of the appellant's age. In Akbar Sheikh and Pawan these documents were not found prima facie credible while in Jitendra Singh the documents viz., school leaving certificate, marksheet and the medical report were treated sufficient for directing an inquiry and verification of the appellant's age. If such documents prima facie inspire confidence of the court, the court may act upon such documents for the purposes of Section 7A and order an enquiry for determination of the age of the delinquent. (iv) An affidavit of the claimant or any of the parents or a sibling or a relative in support of the claim of juvenility raised for the first time in appeal or revision or before this Court during the pendency of the matter or after disposal of the case shall not be sufficient justifying an enquiry to determine the age of such person unless the circumstances of the case are so glaring that satisfy the judicial conscience of the court to order an enquiry into determination of age of the delinquent. (v) The court where the plea of juvenility is raised for the first time should always be guided by the objectives of the 2000 Act and be alive to the position that the beneficent and salutary provisions contained in 2000 Act are not defeated by hyper-technical approach and the persons who are entitled to get benefits of 2000 Act get such benefits. The courts should not be unnecessarily influenced by any general impression that in schools the parents/guardians understate the age of their wards by one or two years for future benefits or that age determination by medical examination is not very precise. The matter should be considered prima facie on the touchstone of preponderance of probability. (vi) Claim of juvenility lacking in credibility or frivolous claim of juvenility or patently absurd or inherently improbable claim of juvenility must be rejected by the court at threshold whenever raised." (Emphasis applied) 15. In Ashok v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, 2021 (4) PLR 685, the petitioner filed an appeal, challenging his conviction and sentence, which was confirmed by the High Court, He claimed that he was born on 05.01.1981, therefore he was approximately 16 years and 07 month old on the date of accident. The said plea that he was a juvenile was raised for the first time before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The said plea that he was a juvenile was raised for the first time before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. While dealing with the said plea, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the claim of juvenility can be raised before any Court, at any stage, and even after final disposal of the case. The observations made by the Apex Court reads as under:- "9. The claim of juvenility can thus be raised before any Court, at any stage, even after final disposal of the case and if the Court finds a person to be a juvenile on the date of commission of the offence, it is to forward the juvenile to the Board for passing appropriate orders, and the sentence, if any, passed by a Court, shall be deemed to have no effect. 10. Even though the offence in this case may have been committed before the enactment of the Act of 2000, the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of juvenility under Section 7A of the Act of 2000, if on inquiry it is found that he was less than 18 years of age on the date of the alleged offence." 16. In view of the above discussion and after examining the relevant provisions of the Act of 2015, we of the considered opinion that the claim of juvenility can be raised before any Court, at any stage, even after final disposal of the case. If the Court finds a person to be juvenile on the date of the commission of the offence, it is to forward the juvenile to the Board for passing appropriate orders, and the sentence, if any, passed by the Court, shall be deemed to have no effect. This question is accordingly answered. Question No II 17. As per the facts of the present case, one of the accused namely Akram was found juvenile and he was referred to the Juvenile Justice Board; however, the 'challan' against the appellant Suraj was directly presented before the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge under the POCSO Act. The appellant had presented an application before the said Court claiming that his date of birth is 04.04.1998. The occurrence took place on 06.02.2016. As such, the appellant claimed his age 17 years and 08 months at the time of the alleged occurrence. The appellant had presented an application before the said Court claiming that his date of birth is 04.04.1998. The occurrence took place on 06.02.2016. As such, the appellant claimed his age 17 years and 08 months at the time of the alleged occurrence. However, the said application was declined on 22.09.2016 on the ground that the appellant could not examine a witness from the school to prove his school certificate Mark-A and Mark-C, he could not examine an employee from the bank to prove his bank account Mark-B. It was further observed that even the parents of the appellant could not appear as a witness. The relevant part of the order reads as under:- "7. Only three documents have been placed on record by the applicant himself. None of his parents appeared before the court to support his date of birth as 4.4.1998. He has placed these documents on the record. Mark A Net generated copy, Mark B single page of bank account and Mark C certificate from school. Mark C and Mark A are attested by HOS, Government Boys Senior Secondary School, Deoli, New Delhi but signature on Mark C document is not same as mentioned on Mark A and difference can be seen from naked eye even. No witness from the school was invited to say about authenticity of document Mark C. No person from Central Board of Education has been summoned to prove document Mark A. No person from bank has been summoned to prove document Mark B. So all the three documents are just placed on record as marked and not proved and exhibited as per the Indian Evidence Act. The persons who issued these documents have not appeared. Even statement released by ASI Ish Kumar shows that at the time of admission in school no birth certificate issued by MCD or government hospital was given to the school. So origin regarding date of birth of applicant-accused has not come on record. Applicant-accused has also been stated anything regarding his birth whether it was at home or in any government institution or hospital. At least one of the parents should have appeared before court to say where his birth took place. Whether any entry was made in any government institution regarding his date of birth or not. Applicant-accused has also been stated anything regarding his birth whether it was at home or in any government institution or hospital. At least one of the parents should have appeared before court to say where his birth took place. Whether any entry was made in any government institution regarding his date of birth or not. So, simply placing on record Mark A to Mark C do not prove date of birth of the applicant as 4.4.1998. Hence, I do not see any ground in the application as well as in evidence led by the applicant regarding his date of birth. Hence, the present application stands dismissed." 18. We have considered the aforesaid contentions and observed that the Trial Court has taken hyper-technical view while dismissing the said application. It is well recognized that children are not to be treated like the adults and they have to be tried differently keeping in view their needs. 19. We would like to refer to some of the provisions which are required to be kept in mind while dealing with Children. (1) Section 3 of the Act of 2015 provides for the general principles of care and protection of children to be followed in the administration of the Act. According to it, the Central Government, the State Government, the Board and other agencies, while implementing the provisions of the Act shall be guided by the fundamental principles specified in clauses (i) to (xvi). Some of the relevant principles which were required to be kept in mind reads as under: "Section (3) General principles to be followed in administration of Act-- xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx "(i) Principle of presumption of innocence: Any child shall be presumed to be an innocent of any mala fide or criminal intent up to the age of eighteen years. xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx (iii) Principle of participation: Every child shall have a right to be heard and to participate in all processes and decisions affecting his interest and the child's views shall be taken into consideration with due regard to the age and maturity of the child. (iv) Principle of best interest: All decisions regarding the child shall be based on the primary consideration that they are in the best interest of the child and to help the child to develop full potential. (iv) Principle of best interest: All decisions regarding the child shall be based on the primary consideration that they are in the best interest of the child and to help the child to develop full potential. xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx (viii) Principle of non-stigmatising semantics: Adversarial or accusatory words are not to be used in the processes pertaining to a child. (ix) Principle of non-waiver of rights: No waiver of any of the right of the child is permissible or valid, whether sought by the child or person acting on behalf of the child, or a Board or a Committee and any non-exercise of a fundamental right shall not amount to waiver. xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx (xvi) Principles of natural justice: Basic procedural standards of fairness shall be adhered to, including the right to a fair hearing, rule against bias and the right to review, by all persons or bodies, acting in a judicial capacity under this Act." 2. The Act of 2015 cast many responsibilities upon the Board. Few of the relevant such duties are as under: "8. Powers, functions and responsibilities of the Board 1............ 2............. 3. The functions and responsibilities of the Board shall include'- (a) ensuring the informed participation of the child and the parent or guardian, in every step of the process; (m) conducting regular inspection of jails meant for adults to check if any child is lodged in such jails and take immediate measures for transfer of such a child to the observation home; and" xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 20. The observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Abuzar Hossains ' case (supra) highlight that delinquent juveniles need to be dealt with differently from adults. The relevant portion in para 1 reads as under:- "1. Delinquent juveniles need to be dealt with differently from adults. International covenants and domestic laws in various countries have prescribed minimum standards for delinquent juveniles and juveniles in conflict with law. These standards provide what orders may be passed regarding delinquent juveniles and the orders that may not be passed against them. Delinquent juveniles need to be dealt with differently from adults. International covenants and domestic laws in various countries have prescribed minimum standards for delinquent juveniles and juveniles in conflict with law. These standards provide what orders may be passed regarding delinquent juveniles and the orders that may not be passed against them. This group of matters raises the question of when should a claim of juvenility be recognised and sent for determination when it is raised for the first time in appeal or before this Court or raised in trial and appeal but not pressed and then pressed for the first time before this Court or even raised for the first time after final disposal of the case." 21. The objectives of enactment of the Juvenile Justice Act and making further amendments in the said has been highlighted by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Abuzar Hossains ' case (supra) and reads as under:- "3. The Parliament felt it necessary that uniform juvenile justice system should be available throughout the country which should make adequate provision for dealing with all aspects in the changing social, cultural and economic situation in the country and there was also need for larger involvement of informal systems and community based welfare agencies in the care, protection, treatment, development and rehabilitation of such juveniles and with these objectives in mind, it enacted Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 (for short, 1986 Act'). 4. 1986 Act was replaced by the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (for short, 2000 Act). 2000 Act has been enacted to carry forward the constitutional philosophy engrafted in Articles 15(3), 39(e) and (I), 45 and 47 of the Constitution and also incorporate the standards prescribed in the Convention on the Rights of the Child, United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice, 1985, the United Nations Rules for the Protection of Juveniles Deprived of their Liberty (1990) and all other relevant international instruments. Clause (k) of Section 2 defines "juvenile" or "child" to mean a person who has not completed eighteenth year of age. Clause (1) of Section 2 defines "juvenile in conflict with law" to mean a juvenile who is alleged to have committed an offence and has not completed eighteenth year of age on the date of commission of such offence." 22. Clause (1) of Section 2 defines "juvenile in conflict with law" to mean a juvenile who is alleged to have committed an offence and has not completed eighteenth year of age on the date of commission of such offence." 22. We have observed that the grounds on which the application filed by the appellant was dismissed are not well justified. The appellant was in custody at the time he moved the said application. He was claiming juvenility on the basis of school certificate but he was having only the photocopy. He had the limitation being in custody to produce the evidence by actively bringing on record the original document. The learned trial Court could have summoned the said documents from the school or the parents of the appellant could have been summoned to bring the date of birth certificate and their statements regarding the age of the appellant could have been recorded. The documents on which the reliance can be placed and the process which can be followed for determination of the age of a child allegedly in conflict of law are specified in Section 94 (2) of the Act of 2015, which reads as under:- "94. Presumption and determination of age,--1. Where, it is obvious to the Committee or the Board, based on the appearance of the person brought before it under any of the provisions of this Act (other than for the purpose of giving evidence) that the said person is a child, the Committee or the Board shall record such observation stating the age of the child as nearly as may be and proceed with the inquiry under section 14 or section 36, as the case may be, without waiting for further confirmation of the age. 2. 2. In case, the Committee or the Board has reasonable grounds for doubt regarding whether the person brought before it is a child or not, the Committee or the Board, as the case may be, shall undertake the process of age determination, by seeking evidence by obtaining -- (i) the date of birth certificate from the school, or the matriculation or equivalent certificate from the concerned examination Board, if available; and in the absence thereof; (ii) the birth certificate given by a corporation or a municipal authority or a panchayat; (iii) and only in the absence of (i) and (ii) above, age shall be determined by an ossification test or any other latest medical age determination test conducted on the orders of the Committee or the Board: Provided such age determination test conducted on the order of the Committee or the Board shall be completed within fifteen days from the date of such order. 3. The age recorded by the Committee or the Board to be the age of person so brought before it shall, for the purpose of this Act, be deemed to be the true age of that person." (Emphasis applied by this Court) 23. With regard to the non-production of the matriculation certificate, date of birth certificate or the certificates issued by the Corporation of Municipal Authority, Hon'ble Justice T.S.Thakur, J. in Abuzar Hossains ' case (supra) held that a provision has been made for determination of the question in the absence of such certificates that is by way of medical examination of the accused. The observations made by the Hon'ble Judge reads as under:- "40. The second factor which must ever remain present in the mind of the Court is that the claim of juvenility may at times be made even in cases where the accused does not have any evidence, showing his date of birth, by reference to any public document like the register of births maintained by Municipal Authorities, Panchayats or hospitals nor any certificate from any school, as the accused was never admitted to any school. Even if admitted to a school no record regarding such admission may at times be available for production in the Court. Even if admitted to a school no record regarding such admission may at times be available for production in the Court. Again there may be cases in which the accused may not be in a position to provide a birth certificate from the Corporation, the municipality or the Panchayat, for we know that registration of births and deaths may not be maintained and if maintained may not be regular and accurate, and at times truthful. Rule 12(3) of the Rules makes only three certificates relevant. These are enumerated in Sub- Rule 3(a)(i) to (iii) of the Rule which reads as under: "3. (a) (i) the matriculation or equivalent certificates, if available; and in the absence whereof; (ii) the date of birth certificate from the school (other than a play school) first attended; and in the absence whereof; (iii) the birth certificate given by a corporation or a municipal authority or a panchayat; 41. Non production of the above certificates or any one of them is not, however, fatal to the claim of juvenility, for Sub-Rule 3(b) to Rule 12 makes a provision for determination of the question on the basis of the medical examination of the accused in the 'absence' of the certificates. Rule 12(3)(b) runs as under: "12(3) (b) and only in the absence of either (i), (ii) or (iii) of clause (a) above, the medical opinion will be sought from a duly constituted Medical Board, which will declare the age of the juvenile or child. In case exact assessment of the age cannot be done, the Court, or the Board or, as the case may be, the Committee, for the reasons to be recorded by them, may, if considered necessary, give benefit to the child or juvenile by considering his/her age on lower side within the margin of one year." (Emphasis applied) 24. We have also considered the question as to whether any prejudice has been caused to the appellant if the enquiry has not been properly conducted by the trial Court with regard to the claim of the juvenility raised by the appellant during the trial stage? The Act of 2015 provides classification of offences, the appropriate Court competent to conduct enquiry (trial) for such offences and the reformatory scheme for punishments. The Act of 2015 provides classification of offences, the appropriate Court competent to conduct enquiry (trial) for such offences and the reformatory scheme for punishments. The Act classifies the offences into three categories i.e. petty offences, serious offences and heinous offences, which are defined under Section 2 of the Act and it reads as under:- "2. Definitions:- In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX 45. "petty offences" includes the offences for which the maximum punishment under the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) or any other law for the time being in force is imprisonment up to three years; XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX 54. "serious offences" includes the offences for which the punishment under the Indian Penal Code or any other law for the time being in force, is imprisonment between three to seven years; XXXX XXXX XXXX 33. "heinous offences" includes the offences for which the minimum punishment under the Indian Penal Code or any other law for the time being in force is imprisonment for seven years or more; " 25. The appellant was facing the trial for an offence which comes under the category of heinous offences. Keeping in view the punishment provided for the same. As per the procedure provided under the Act of 2015, to be followed for trial of an offence which is "heinous offence". (i) Since the plea of juvenility was raised before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge so the procedure to be followed under Section 9 is relevant, which has been reproduced earlier. (ii) After the enquiry regarding the age the relevant provisions to be followed as contained in Sections 14 and 15 of the Act are reproduced as under:- "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. 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 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 subsection (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. 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; (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; (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. 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 subsection (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. 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: Provided that the order of the Board to dispose of the matter shall be appealable under subsection (2) of section 101: Provided further that the assessment under this section shall be completed within the period specified in section 14." (iii) The provisions with regard to the orders which could have been passed by the JJB and by the Children Court after the conclusion of the enquiry (trial) are contained in Section 17 and 18, which are reproduced as under. However. the provisions of Sections 20 and 21 of the Act are also relevant for the purpose of the orders which can be passed against a juvenile on conclusion of the enquiry (trial), the same are also reproduced as under:- "17. Orders regarding a 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. 18. Orders regarding child found to be in conflict with law.--- 1. 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. 18. Orders regarding child found to be in conflict with law.--- 1. Where a Board is satisfied on inquiry that a child irrespective of age has committed a petty offence, or a serious offence, or a child below the age of sixteen years has committed a heinous offence, then, notwithstanding anything contrary contained in any other law for the time being in force, and based on the nature of offence, specific need for supervision or intervention, circumstances as brought out in the social investigation report and past conduct of the child, the Board may, if it so thinks fit,- (a) allow the child to go home after advice or admonition by following appropriate inquiry and counselling to such child and to his parents or the guardian; (b) direct the child to participate in group counselling and similar activities; (c) order the child to perform community service under the supervision of an organisation or institution, or a specified person, persons or group of persons identified by the Board; (d) order the child or parents or the guardian of the child to pay fine: Provided that, in case the child is working, it may be ensured that the provisions of any labour law for the time being in force are not violated; (e) direct the child to be released on probation of good conduct and placed under the care of any parent, guardian or fit person, on such parent, guardian or fit person executing a bond, with or without surety, as the Board may require, for the good behaviour and child's well-being for any period not exceeding three years; (f) direct the child to be released on probation of good conduct and placed under the care and supervision of any fit facility for ensuring the good behaviour and child's well-being for any period not exceeding three years; (g) direct the child to be sent to a special home, for such period, not exceeding three years, as it thinks fit, for providing reformative services including education, skill development, counselling, behaviour modification therapy, and psychiatric support during the period of stay in the special home: Provided that if the conduct and behaviour of the child has been such that, it would not be in the child's interest, or in the interest of other children housed in a special home, the Board may send such child to the place of safety. 2. If an order is passed under clauses (a) to (g) of sub-section (1), the Board may, in addition pass orders to- (i) attend school; or (ii) attend a vocational training centre; or (iii) attend a therapeutic centre; or (iv) prohibit the child from visiting, frequenting or appearing at a specified place; or (v) undergo a de-addiction programme. 3. Where the Board after preliminary assessment under section 15 passes 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. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX 20. Child attained age of twenty-one years and yet to complete prescribed term of stay in place of safety.--- 1. When the child in conflict with the law attains the age of twenty-one years and is yet to complete the term of stay, the Children's Court shall provide for a follow up by the probation officer or the District Child Protection Unit or a social worker or by itself, as required, to evaluate if such child has undergone reformative changes and if the child can be a contributing member of the society and for this purpose the progress records of the child under subsection (4) of section 19, along with evaluation of relevant experts are to be taken into consideration. 2. After the completion of the procedure specified under sub-section (1), the Children's Court may- (i) decide to release the child on such conditions as it deems fit which includes appointment of a monitoring authority for the remainder of the prescribed term of stay; (ii) decide that the child shall complete the remainder of his term in a jail: Provided that each State Government shall maintain a list of monitoring authorities and monitoring procedures as may be prescribed. 21. 21. Order that may not be passed against a child in conflict with law.-No child in conflict with law shall be sentenced to death or for life imprisonment without the possibility of release, for any such offence, either under the provisions of this Act or under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code or any other law for the time being in force." (iv) With regard to the powers of the Children Court and the procedure to be followed by the said Court, the relevant provisions are contained in Section 19 which are reproduced as under:- "19. Powers of Children's Court.- 1. After the receipt of preliminary assessment from the Board under section 15L 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 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. 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. 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." 26. In view of the aforesaid provisions and the facts of the present case, that the appellant had raised the claim of juvenility before the court where he was produced for trial, where he was facing trial for commission of heinous offence. The Scheme of the Act of 2015 provides various reformatory provisions which are in the interest of a child. The aforesaid provisions clearly indicate that the appellant could have gotten the concessions/benefits in terms of the final order which could have been passed against him even if the enquiry was ultimately culminated by holding him guilty of the offence for which he was tried. 27. The procedure to be followed and the final order which could have been passed in such situation is summarized as under:- a. Proper enquiry should have conducted by the trail court and thereafter recorded a finding regarding his age. [Section 9(2)]; b. If the finding could have been that he is juvenile, between the age group of 16-18 years, the appellant would have been sent to Juvenile justice board, [Section 9(3)]; c. Thereafter, the Board would have conducted preliminary assessment under section 15 of the Act; i. with regard to the mental and physical capacity to commit such offence, ii. ability to understand the consequences of the offence and iii. the circumstances in which he allegedly committed the offence d. Upon preliminary assessment, if the Board concludes that the matter should be decided by the Board, in that situation, the only order could have been passed under sections 17 and 18 of the Act i.e. maximum of which is sending him to Special Home not beyond 3 years. the circumstances in which he allegedly committed the offence d. Upon preliminary assessment, if the Board concludes that the matter should be decided by the Board, in that situation, the only order could have been passed under sections 17 and 18 of the Act i.e. maximum of which is sending him to Special Home not beyond 3 years. e. However, upon preliminary assessment, if the Board concludes that there is need for trial of the said child as an adult then the Board may order transfer of the trial of the case to the Childrens' Court for further proceedings under Sections 19 and 20 of the Act. f. After receipt of the preliminary assessment from the Board under Section 15 of the Act, the Childrens' Court was to make a decision under Section 19 of the Act of 2015 and pass an appropriate order as to whether there is need for further trial of the child as an adult as per the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure and where the Children Court finds that there was no such need for trial of the child as an adult, it has the power to conduct the enquiry as a Board and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the provisions of Section 18 of the Act of 2015, otherwise he would have tried by the Children Court and order could have been as per Section 21 of the Act of 2015. g. The child in conflict with law is also having a right to be kept in a Place of Safety till he attains the age of 21 years. He cannot be kept in jail till he attains the age of 21 years. h. The child in conflict with law has also a right that on attaining the age of 21 years but if he has not yet completed the term of stay as per the orders of the Childrens' Court, he can be released subject to the conditions fixed by the Childrens' Court including appointment of a monitory authority for the reminder of his term of stay provided it is found that the child has undergone reformative changes. For this purpose the Childrens' Court considers the record of follow up given by the Probation Officer or the District Child Protection Unit or by a social worker. 28. For this purpose the Childrens' Court considers the record of follow up given by the Probation Officer or the District Child Protection Unit or by a social worker. 28. In the present case by not holding a proper enquiry, the appellant has been deprived of his rights/concessions which he would have been granted under the scheme of Act of 2015. 29. What would have been the consequences, if he would have been held as a child in conflict of law and also held in the preliminary assessment to be tried as an adult by the Children Court or by the Board itself have been analyzed and summed up by the Apex Court in Barun Chandra Thakur's case (supra). The said analysis and effect of such an order as laid down in paragraph No. 45 of the said judgment is reproduced as under:- "45. The order of preliminary assessment decides whether the child in conflict with law, falling in the age bracket of 16-18 years and having committed heinous offence, is to be tried as an adult by the Children's Court or by the Board itself, treating him to be a child. There are two major consequences provided in the Act, 2015, if the child is tried as an adult by the Children's Court. First, that the sentence or the punishment can go up to life imprisonment if the child is tried as an adult by the Children's Court, whereas if the child is tried by the Board as a child, the maximum sentence that can be awarded is 3 years. The second major consequence is that where the child is tried as a child by the Board, then under section 24(1), he would not suffer any disqualification attached to the conviction of an offence, whereas the said removal of disqualification would not be available to a child who is tried as an adult by the Children's Court, as per the proviso to section 24(1). Another consequence, which may also have serious repercussions, is that as per section 24(2), where the Board or the Children's Court, after the case is over, may direct the police or the registry that relevant records of such conviction may be destroyed after the period of expiry of appeal or a reasonable period as may be prescribed. Another consequence, which may also have serious repercussions, is that as per section 24(2), where the Board or the Children's Court, after the case is over, may direct the police or the registry that relevant records of such conviction may be destroyed after the period of expiry of appeal or a reasonable period as may be prescribed. Whereas, when a child is tried as an adult, the relevant records shall be retained by the relevant Court, as per the proviso to section 24(2). 46. These consequences are serious in nature and have a lasting effect for the entire life of the child. It is well settled that any order that has serious civil consequences, reasonable opportunity must be afforded. The question is of what would be a reasonable opportunity in a case where a preliminary assessment is to be made by the Board under section 15." 30. Coming to the facts of the present case, we have observed that it was within the purview of the trial Court to summon the witness from the school and to summon the bank officials to prove the school certificate and the bank passbook, photocopies of which were produced up by the appellant. Another reason has been recorded by the trial Court that parents of the appellant had not deposed. The said reason cannot be used against the appellant to oust him from his claim of juvenility. The appellant was in custody. It was the duty of the Court to call for his parents in the said enquiry. The said duty has been cast upon the authority as per the provisions of Section 90 of the Act of 2015 and Section 46 of the previous Act of 2000. Section 90 of the Act of 2015 reads as under:- "90. The Committee or the Board, as the case may be, before which a child is brought under any of the provisions of this Act, may, whenever it so thinks fit, require any parent or guardian having the actual charge of the child to be present at any proceeding in respect of that child." 31. We have also considered the question that a lot of time has already passed and the alleged occurrence took place on 06.02.2016. The trial has already been concluded and the appellant has been convicted and sentenced. About 06 years and 10 months have already passed. We have also considered the question that a lot of time has already passed and the alleged occurrence took place on 06.02.2016. The trial has already been concluded and the appellant has been convicted and sentenced. About 06 years and 10 months have already passed. In case during the enquiry, the appellant is held below the age of 18 years, how far it would be practical to conduct preliminary assessment under Section 15 and 19 of the Act of 2015. We find the answer to this query in the observations made by the Apex Court in Barun Chandra Thakur's case (supra). The order made under Section 15 of the Act of 2015 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board and the order passed by the learned Additional & Sessions Judge/Childrens' Court were set aside by the High Court and the matter was remanded to the Board for fresh consideration but the said order passed in the revision by the High Court was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court left it to the discretion of the Board or the psychologist to be consulted as to whether any fresh examination would be of any relevance/assistance or not. Relevant paragraph having the observations by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reads as under:- " 85. The High court taking into consideration all these aspects set aside the order of the Board, and remanded the matter and also directed for getting further examination of the child, and this exercise was to be undertaken within 6 weeks. Today, after 3-1/2 years, we are not in a position to give an opinion as to whether any further test can be carried out at this stage as the age of the child is now more than 21 years. However, we leave it to the discretion of the Board or the psychologist who may be consulted as to whether any fresh examination would be of any relevance/assistance or not. We have already referred to in detail the kind of analysis or assessment required to be made under section 15.The Act, 2015 or the Model Rules do not lay down any guidelines or framework to facilitate the Board in making a proper preliminary assessment on the relevant aspects. The only liberty given to the Board is to obtain assistance of an experienced psychologist or a psycho-social worker or other expert. The only liberty given to the Board is to obtain assistance of an experienced psychologist or a psycho-social worker or other expert. In the present case, the only assistance taken is to get the mental IQ of the child. Beyond that, regarding the ability to understand the consequences and also the circumstances in which the alleged offence was committed, no report was called for from any psychologist." (Emphasis applied) 32. In view of the above and in terms of the decision of by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ashok's case (supra), we are of the considered opinion that the present application is required to be allowed. 33. Consequently, the application filed by the appellant praying for referring the matter back for holding an enquiry stands allowed. The trial Court will examine the claim of applicant-appellant to juvenility in accordance with law and submit a report to this Court within two month from the date of communication of this order. The trial Court shall be entitled to examine the authenticity and genuineness of the documents sought to have been relied upon by the appellant, considering that the documents do not appear to be tampered with. In case, the documents are found to be questionable, it will be open to the trial Court to have the applicant-appellant medically examined by taking an ossification test or by any other modern recognized method of the age determination. 34. Before parting with this order, we have also observed that there is great rationale behind the time line provided under the Act to conclude various enquiries. (a) For giving findings that there is need for trial of a child as an adult, one needs to look at his/her physical maturity, cognitive abilities, social and emotional competencies; and the circumstances under which he/she allegedly committed the offence. With passage of time, to give assessment regarding the position as on the day of occurrence becomes difficult. (b) If the enquiry to determine the age of a person claiming juvenility is delayed and if the said person is later on able to prove that he is a child and he remains in custody, lodged in jail and staying in contact with the adult under-trial prisoners in the jail. The effect on the psychology of a child during the said stay causes childhood abrasions. The effect on the psychology of a child during the said stay causes childhood abrasions. The timelines and its importance as highlighted by the Apex court in Barun Chandra Thakur's case (supra) reads as under: "Timeline 59. There is a timeline provided for the inquiry, submission of the SIR, preliminary assessment and the investigation under the Act, 2015 and the Model Rules: i. The inquiry by the Board under section 14(1) is to be completed within a period of four months from the date of first production of the child before the Board, and it could be extended by a period of two more months by the Board for the reasons to be recorded as per section 14(2) . ii. Section 14(3) provides that a preliminary assessment under section 15 should be disposed of by the Board within a period of three months from the date of first production of the child before the Board. iii. Under section 14(4) it is provided that if the inquiry by the Board under section 15 for petty offences remains inconclusive even after the extended period, the proceedings shall stand terminated. iv. Under the proviso to section 14(4) dealing with the serious or heinous offences, in case the Board requires further period of time for completion of inquiry, the same may be granted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate or, as the case may be, the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, for reasons to be recorded. v. Under section 8(3)(e) , SIR is to be submitted by the Probation Officer or the Child Welfare Officer or a social worker within a period of fifteen days from the date of first production of the child before the Board. vi. In rule 10(5) of the Model Rules, in case of heinous offences committed by a child between the age of 16 to 18 years, the Child Welfare Police Officer shall produce the statement of witnesses recorded by him and other documents prepared during the course of investigation within a period of one month from the date of first production of the child before the Board. 60. The timeline given under the various provisions as referred to above, has a rationale. The SIR to be submitted within fifteen days would facilitate the Board in taking a decision on the request for bail at the earliest. 60. The timeline given under the various provisions as referred to above, has a rationale. The SIR to be submitted within fifteen days would facilitate the Board in taking a decision on the request for bail at the earliest. The period of one month given under rule 10(5) is to facilitate the Board to take a decision may be on a pending bail matter or for preliminary assessment for which three months' time is provided. The completion of inquiry within four months or any extended period is to ensure that a child is not subjected to unnecessary long and lengthy processes of trials and inquiries and that the matter is taken to its logical conclusion at the earliest ." (Emphasis applied) 35. Though the claim of juvenility can be raised at any stage even during the appeal but we have noticed that if the timeline provided under the Act of 2015 is not adhered to by the authorities and the judicial officers, it become difficult to set the clock back and also becomes difficult for conducting preliminary assessment with regard to the mental and physical capacity of the person facing allegation of commission of an offence, ability to understand the consequences of the offence and also to evaluate the circumstances in which the alleged offence was committed. 36. As such, we have observed that there is a need for laying emphasis upon the process of review of process pending before various authorities and the enquiries pending before the Juvenile Justice Board under the Act. The Act of 2015 specifically provides a provision for periodical review of pendency of such cases concerning the children under Section 16. The said Section is reproduced as under:- "16. Review of pendency of inquiry.-1. The Chief Judicial Magistrate or the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate shall review the pendency of cases of the Board once in every three months, and shall direct the Board to increase the frequency of its sittings or may recommend the constitution of additional Boards. 2. The said Section is reproduced as under:- "16. Review of pendency of inquiry.-1. The Chief Judicial Magistrate or the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate shall review the pendency of cases of the Board once in every three months, and shall direct the Board to increase the frequency of its sittings or may recommend the constitution of additional Boards. 2. The number of cases pending before the Board, duration of such pendency, nature of pendency and reasons thereof shall be reviewed in every six months by a high level committee consisting of the Executive Chairperson of the State Legal Services Authority, who shall be the Chairperson, the Home Secretary, the Secretary responsible for the implementation of this Act in the State and a representative from a voluntary or nongovernmental organisation to be nominated by the Chairperson. 3. The information of such pendency shall also be furnished by the Board to the Chief Judicial Magistrate or the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and the District Magistrate on quarterly basis in such form as may be prescribed by the State Government. 4. The District Magistrate may, as and when required, in the best interest of a child, call for any information from all the stakeholders including the Board and the Committee. 37. We have also observed that a child who is aggrieved of any order passed by the Juvenile Justice Board as well as an order passed by the Board making preliminary assessment into a heinous offence under section 15 of the Act has a right to file an appeal under Section 101 of the Act. Keeping in view of the Principle of non-waiver of rights and principle of participation, we feel the necessity that the child/the person aggrieved of such orders should be informed of his right to file an appeal. This would also avoid delay in conclusion of such enquiries. 38. As a result of above discussion, the following directions are issued. (i) As and when any person brought before a Court (including an appellate Court), who is alleged to have committed an offence, claims before that Court that he is a child or was a child on the day of commission of the offence, the said Court shall promptly conduct an enquiry to determine the age of that person [sub-section (2) of Section 9]; (ii) The courts and the authorities are required to deal with children differently from adults. While dealing with children, the Principle of presumption of innocence, Principle of participation, Principle of best interest, Principle of non-stigmatizing semantics, Principle of non-waiver of rights and Principles of natural justice as contained in Section 3 of the Act of 2015, are required to be followed. (iii) The Judicial officers and the authorities dealing with the children are required to be pro-active during the process of age determination. The evidence regarding the age can be sought from the authorities wherever such evidence is available. The documents mentioned in Section 94 (2) of the Act of 2015 should be taken into consideration and the process to determine the age as mentioned therein should be quickly followed. (iv) The parent (s) or the guardian having the actual charge of the child should be joined during the proceedings in respect of a child by the authorities, Child Welfare Committee, Juvenile Justice Board and by any Court in compliance of the provisions of Section 90 of the Act of 2015. (v) The Judicial Magistrate Incharge of Juvenile Justice Board either individually or may accompany the District and Sessions Judge during the jail inspections and conduct regular inspection of the jail meant for adults to check if any child is lodged in such jails and take immediate measures for transfer of that child to an observation home or place of safety, as the case may be, as per the provisions of Section 8 (m) of the Act of 2015. (vi) The authorities and the courts dealing with children are required to follow the timelines given under the Act of 2015 and the Model Rules. (vii) The Juvenile Justice Board is required to complete the enquiry under Section 14 (1) of the Act of 2015 within a maximum period of 04 months unless extended for a period of maximum two more months after recording the reasons for the said extension. (viii) The preliminary assessment in the case of a heinous offence is to be disposed of by the Juvenile Justice Board within a period of 03 months from the date of first production of the child before the Board. (ix) The Chief Judicial Magistrate or the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate may grant extension of time for completion of the enquiry by the Juvenile Justice Board for serious or heinous offences after recording the reasons. [Proviso to sub-section (4) of Section 14 of the Act of 2015]. (ix) The Chief Judicial Magistrate or the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate may grant extension of time for completion of the enquiry by the Juvenile Justice Board for serious or heinous offences after recording the reasons. [Proviso to sub-section (4) of Section 14 of the Act of 2015]. (x) The Probation Officers, the Child Welfare Officers and the Social Workers shall make an endeavour to submit Social Investigation Report (SIR) within a period of 15 days from the date of first production of the child before the Juvenile Justice Board as required under Section 8 (3) (e) of the Act of 2015. (xi) The process of age determination test under Section 94 (2) of the Act of 2015 be completed by medical authorities within 15 days. (xii) The copy of an adverse order made by Child Welfare Committee or by the Juvenile Justice Board under the Act of 2015, as well as copy of an adverse order passed by the Juvenile Justice Board after conducting preliminary assessment into a heinous offence under Section 15 of the Act of 2015 shall be supplied to the person aggrieved of such an order free of cost and the person aggrieved by such an order shall be informed of his right to appeal under Section 101 of the Act. (xiii) The Chief Judicial Magistrate or the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate shall review the pendency of the cases of the Board in each District at least once in every three months. (xiv) The Chief Judicial Magistrate or the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate shall place a report before the District & Sessions Judge regarding review of pendency of cases before the Juvenile Justice Board and the cases in which the timeline provided under the Act of 2015 is not being adhered to; the District & Sessions Judge would scrutinize the reasons for increase in pendency (if any) and the reasons for not adhering to the timeline provided under the Act; and would discuss such reasons, and find out the solutions, during the periodical District Level meetings which are being held (or to be held) for implementation of the Act of 2015. 39. For awaiting the report of the trial Court, the matter be listed on 11.04.2023. 40. The Registry to circulate the copy of the judgment to all the Judicial Officers with a direction to adhere to the aforesaid directions. 39. For awaiting the report of the trial Court, the matter be listed on 11.04.2023. 40. The Registry to circulate the copy of the judgment to all the Judicial Officers with a direction to adhere to the aforesaid directions. Copy be also sent to the State Government of Punjab and State Government of Haryana, directing the authorities under the Act of 2015 to adhere to the aforesaid directions. Copy of the judgment be also sent to the Director, Chandigarh Judicial Academy to do the needful by way of conducting sensitization programmes from time to time.