Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 711 (TS)

Telugu Narendra v. State of Telangana

2023-10-20

N.TUKARAMJI

body2023
JUDGMENT : (N. Tukaramji, J.) 1. Heard Mr. P. Anim Reddy, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Mr. M. Muralidhar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent. 2. This Criminal Revision Case has been filed assailing the order dated 23.06.2022 in C.C. No. 19 of 2022 on the file of V Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate-cum-Principal Magistrate of Juvenile Justice Board at Hyderabad. 3. In the impugned order the Juvenile Justice Board on preliminary assessment under Section 15 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (for short, 'the J.J. Act') adjudged that the revision petitioner/ Child in Conflict with law (hereinafter 'the CCL') has to be transferred to the Children's Court. 4. The contest of the revision petitioner is that even as per the prosecution, by the date of occurrence of the incident, the CCL was aged about 15 years 10 months. The Section 15 of the JJ Act contemplates that the Juvenile Justice Board has to conduct preliminary assessment in heinous offence alleged to have been committed by the CCL who is above the age of 16 years old. Thus, the Juvenile Justice Board ought not have conducted the preliminary assessment and transferred the CCL to the Children's Court. Thus to remedy the patent illegality, prayed for intervention in revision. 5. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor though pleaded in support of the impugned order, fairly admitted that as per final report of the prosecution, the age of the revision petitioner was 15 years 10 months on the relevant date and prayed for passing the orders on merits. 6. Perused the materials on record. 7. The prosecution in its final report had categorically observed that as per the bona fide certificate of the school record, the CCL was aged about 15 years 10 months by the date of incident. Further in the memo of evidence the Headmaster, who issued bona fide and conduct certificate has been shown a listed witness. Thus, the prosecution has conclusively taken stand that the CCL is below 16 years by the date of offence. 8. Further in the memo of evidence the Headmaster, who issued bona fide and conduct certificate has been shown a listed witness. Thus, the prosecution has conclusively taken stand that the CCL is below 16 years by the date of offence. 8. In the relevant provision, i.e. Section 14 of the JJ Act prescribes that when a 'child in conflict with law' is produced, the Juvenile Justice Board shall conduct an enquiry and pass orders in accordance with law in terms of Section 17 and 18 of the JJ Act and in regard to heinous offences a preliminary assessment under Section 15 is prescribed in time bound manner. 9. The Section 15 of the JJ Act is contemplating preliminary assessment into heinous offence by the Juvenile Justice Board that, in case of heinous offence has been committed by a child who has completed or above the age of 16 years, the Board shall conduct preliminary assessment in regard to his mental and physical capacity to commit such offence and his ability to understand the consequences of the offence and the circumstances in which he allegedly committed the offence, and to pass necessary orders in accordance with Section 18 (3) of the JJ Act. 10. Thus the provision is specifically mandating that the child conflict with law who is aged 16 and above shall be considered for preliminary assessment under Section 15 of the JJ Act. No other provision in the JJ Act is giving scope or empowering the Juvenile Justice Board to exercise discretion in regard to the age of CCL for conducting preliminary assessment, against the legislative mandate. 11. That being the legal position, thought the prosecution came up with material that the CCL is aged below 16 years of age the Juvenile Justice Board taking up proceedings in terms of the Section 15 of the JJ Act, 2015 and relegating the CCL to the Children's Court is apparently in contravention with the statutory directive. 12. For the aforesaid, as there is palpable impropriety the impugned order dated 23.06.2022 in C.C. No. 19 of 2022 is set aside and the Juvenile Justice Board is directed to take up the further proceedings against the CCL in accordance with the procedure contemplated for a child below the age of 16 years who has committed a heinous offence. 13. With the above direction, this Criminal Revision Case is allowed. 13. With the above direction, this Criminal Revision Case is allowed. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions stands closed.