- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Bhola v. State Of Madhya Pradesh
Factual and Procedural Background
The petitioner challenged the order dated 05-03-2019 passed in Cr.A No. 69/18 by the Special Judge (Atrocities), District Damoh, which affirmed the order dated 07-12-2018 by the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, District Damoh. The Juvenile Justice Board had conducted a preliminary assessment of the petitioner, who was charged with the murder of Sukhnandan, a member of a depressed class, and directed that he be tried as an adult due to the heinous nature of the offence. The petitioner contended that the preliminary assessment was not completed within the mandatory three-month period stipulated by Section 14(3) of the Juvenile Justice Act.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the preliminary assessment under Section 14(3) of the Juvenile Justice Act must be mandatorily completed within three months from the date of first production of the juvenile before the Board.
- Whether the delay in completing the preliminary assessment beyond the three-month period invalidates the order directing the petitioner to be tried as an adult.
- Whether the use of the term "shall" in Section 14(3) imposes a mandatory obligation or is directory in nature.
- Whether the petitioner suffered any prejudice due to the delay in the preliminary assessment.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioner's Arguments
- The Juvenile Justice Board was required by Section 14(3) of the Juvenile Justice Act to complete the preliminary assessment within three months of the first production of the petitioner before the Board.
- The petitioner was first produced on 08-01-2018, but the order was passed on 07-12-2018, almost a year later, violating the mandatory timeline.
- The term "shall" in Section 14(3) indicates a mandatory requirement for timely completion of the assessment.
State's Arguments
- Section 14(3) of the Cr.P.C. is procedural, and the term "shall" does not impose a mandatory obligation with consequences for delay.
- The case record shows multiple listings and one delay due to the absence of the petitioner, indicating no deliberate attempt to delay proceedings.
- The petitioner has not demonstrated any prejudice resulting from the delay in the preliminary assessment.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court analyzed the nature of Section 14(3) of the Juvenile Justice Act, which mandates a preliminary assessment to determine whether a juvenile involved in a heinous offence should be tried as an adult within three months of first production before the Board. The Court observed that this provision is procedural and does not create a substantive right for the juvenile to be assessed strictly within that timeframe. The Court noted that the delay in this case was adequately explained by the State, including procedural listings and the petitioner's absence at one point. Importantly, no prejudice to the petitioner was established due to the delay. Consequently, the Court interpreted the term "shall" in Section 14(3) as directory rather than mandatory, meaning that non-compliance with the three-month period does not invalidate the assessment or the order to try the petitioner as an adult.
Holding and Implications
The petition is dismissed.
The Court upheld the order directing the petitioner to be tried as an adult despite the delay in the preliminary assessment beyond the three-month period. The decision clarifies that the timeline in Section 14(3) is directory and procedural, and failure to adhere strictly to it does not invalidate the Board's order unless prejudice is shown. No new precedent was set; the ruling directly affects the parties by affirming the validity of the preliminary assessment and trial direction in this case.
Atul Sreedharan, J.:— The present petition has been filed by the petitioner herein against the order dated 05-03-2019 passed in Cr.A No. 69/18 by the learned Special Judge (Atrocities) District Damoh affirming the order dated 07-12-2018 passed by the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, District Damoh.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has held that the order passed by the Juvenile Justice Board on 07-12-2018 whereby there was preliminary assessment of the petitioner, whereby it was directed that he be tried as an adult by the Juvenile Justice Board as the crime perpetrated by him come in the category of heinous offences. The petitioner is charged with the murder of one Sukhnandan, a member of depressed class. Learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out to the provision of Section 14(3) which reads as under:—
“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.”
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the procedure mandatorily requires the assessment to be made within a period of three months from the date of the first production of the child before the Board.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he was produced before the Board on 08-01-2018 and the order under Section 14(3) of the Juvenile Justice Act was passed on 7-12-2018 after a passage of almost a year.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the usage of term ‘shall’ in Sub-section 14(3) of Juvenile Justice Board is a mandatory provision requiring the Board to arrive at an assessment within three months.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the State and objector has submitted that Sub-section 14(3) in Cr.P.C being a procedural aspect, the term shall used therein need not clothe the said provision with a mandatory effect as there is no consequence of its violation which is provided under Section 14. Learned counsel for the State further submits that the record of the case pending before the Juvenile Justice Board would reflect that the case was listed several times before and also on one occasion it was delayed on account of the absence of the petitioner before the Juvenile Justice Board. He has further stated that there has been no deliberate attempt on the part of the Juvenile Justice Board to delay the proceedings pertaining to the preliminary assessment. Lastly, the learned counsel for the respondent and the State submits that the petitioner has not been able to establish any kind of prejudice which has occurred on account of the aforementioned delay.
7. The petitioner is aged about 17 years at the time of the incident. The Board in exercise of its powers under Sub-section 14(3) had declared that the petitioner be tried as an adult in this case on account of his involvement in a heinous offence where, the petitioner was old enough to understand the consequences and evil that would follow his actions. This Court is in agreement with the submissions putforth by the learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 and the State.
8. As Section 14 itself relates to a procedural aspect and Subsection (3) which provides for a preliminary assessment of the suitability of trying the Juvenile as an adult in cases of heinous offences, does not create a right in the Juvenile not be assessed after a passage of three months from the date of first production of the juvenile before the Board. Besides, as the delay has adequately been explained by the State and as no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner, the purely procedural nature of the provision to Subsection 14(3) need not compel this court to interpret ‘shall, as ‘shall’ under all circumstances.
9. The said provision is directory rather than mandatory. Under the circumstances, the petition is dismissed.
10. C.C as per rules.
Alert