REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.950/2022
(arising out of SLP(Crl.) No.10123 of 2018)
BARUN CHANDRA THAKUR      …APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
MASTER BHOLU & ANR.    …RESPONDENT(S)
WITH 
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.951/2022
(arising out of SLP(Crl.) No. 6347  of 2022 
@Diary No.25451 of 2019)
CBI                               …APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
BHOLU                         …RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T 
VIKRAM NATH, J.
Delay condoned.
1

2. Leave granted.
3. This   Court   is   called   upon   to   examine   the   proceedings
arising   out   of   preliminary   assessment  made  under  section   15
of   the   Juvenile   Justice   (Care   and   Protection   of   Children)   Act,
2015 1
.   In consonance with the provisions of section 74 of the
Act, 2015 following the orders passed by the Courts below, we
have   used   the   name   ‘ Bholu’   for   the   accused   and   ‘ Prince’   for
the victim.
4. These   two   appeals,   one   filed   by   the   complainant   and
other   by   the   CBI,   question   the   correctness   of   the   judgment
and order dated 11.10.2018 passed by learned single Judge of
Punjab   and   Haryana   High   Court   at   Chandigarh   in   Criminal
Revision   No.2366   of   2018,   titled   Bholu   versus   CBI,   whereby
the   revision   was   allowed;   the   order   dated   20.12.2017   passed
by the Juvenile Justice Board 2
, Gurugram and the order dated
21.05.2018   passed   by   the   Additional   Sessions
Judge/Children’s   Court   were   set   aside   and   the   matter   was
remanded to the Board for fresh consideration within a period
of   six   weeks   from   the   date   of   receipt   of   certified   copy   of   the
1   The Act, 2015.
2  ‘Board’ for short
2

order. Certain other directions were also issued. The operative
portion of the order dated 11.10.2018 is reproduced below: ­
“… In   view   of   the   facts   and   law   position   as
discussed   above,   the   present   petition   is   allowed
and  impugned  order  dated  20.12.2017  passed  by
the   Juvenile   Justice   Board,   Gurugram   and   order
dated   21.05.2018   passed   by   the   Additional
Sessions Judge, Gurugram are set aside. The case
is   remanded   back   to   the   Board   for   afresh
consideration   after   assessing   the   intelligency,
maturity,   physical   fitness   as   to   how   the   juvenile
in conflict with law was in a position to know the
consequences   of   the   offence.   The   necessary
exercise be done within a period of six weeks from
the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. It
is   also   relevant   to   mention   here   that   while
conducting   preliminary   assessment,   the   opinion
of   psychologist   of   the   Government   hospital   be
obtained. ”
5. Facts relevant for the adjudication of the present appeals
are as follows:
(i) An   unfortunate   incident   took   place   on   08.09.2017
in   an   institution   in   Gurugram   where   a   Class   II
student   (Prince)   was   found   in   the   toilet   with   his
throat   slit   in   an   unconscious   state   at   about   08.30
am. He was rushed to the hospital but was declared
brought dead. Initially the State Police on suspicion
arrested three persons, a driver of the school vehicle
and   two   officials   of   the   school,   but   later   on   they
were released on bail. 
3

(ii)   In   the   meantime,   the   State   transferred   the
investigation   to   Central   Bureau   of   Investigation 3
.
The   CBI,   during   its   investigation,   interrogated   a
Class   XI   student   (Bholu)   from   the   same   institution
on   two­three   occasions,   thereafter   arrested   him   on
07.11.2017 (respondent­1, in both the appeals) 4
. 
(iii)   From   the   material   collected,   it   was   found   that   the
date   of   birth   of   respondent   was   03.04.2001.   As   the
date of the incident was 08.09.2017, he was aged 16
years   05   months   and   05   days   as   on   the   relevant
date.   There   is   no   dispute   about   the   date   of   birth   of
the respondent.
6. As   required   by   section   10   of   the   Act,   2015,   the
respondent   was   produced   before   the   Board   by   the   CBI   on
08.11.2017.   The   Board   directed   for   placing   the   child   in   a
safety   home.   The   parents   of   the   respondent   were   informed.
Under   section   13   of   the   Act,   the   Social   Investigation   Report 5
was prepared by the Legal Probation Officer and submitted on
27.11.2017 in the prescribed Form No. 6. 
3  “CBI” for short
4  “the respondent” for short
5   Referred to as “SIR”.
4

7.  Section 15 of the Act, 2015 mandates that where a child
in   conflict   with   law   has   committed   a   heinous   offence   and   is
above the age of 16 years, the Board would make a preliminary
assessment   and   pass   appropriate   orders   in   accordance   with
the provisions of sub­section (3) of section 18 of the Act, 2015.
8.    In the present case, both the conditions required under
section   15   of   the   Act,   2015   were   fulfilled   as   such   the   Board
undertook the exercise of making the preliminary assessment.
In   that   process,   the   Board   called   for   a   report   from   the   expert
psychologist,   also   interacted   with   the   respondent,   considered
the   SIR  as   also  other   material   placed   before  it   and   proceeded
to pass an order on 20.12.2017 holding that there was need of
trial   of   respondent   as   an   adult   and   accordingly,   directed   for
transfer of papers to the Children’s Court.
9. Against   the   order   dated   20.12.2017,   the   respondent
preferred an appeal before the Children’s Court under section
101 of the Act, 2015.  The Children’s Court, vide judgment and
order dated 21.05.2018, upheld the decision of the Board and
dismissed the appeal. 
10. Aggrieved   by   the   judgment   of   the   Children’s   Court,   the
respondent preferred a Criminal Revision under section 102 of
5

the   Act,   2015,   before   the   High   Court.     The   learned   single
Judge vide judgment and order dated 11.10.2018 allowed the
Revision, set aside the orders passed by the Board as also the
Children’s Court and  remanded the  matter  to  the  Board for  a
fresh   consideration.   It   is   this   order   of   remand   passed   by   the
High   Court,   correctness   of   which   has   been   assailed   in   the
present two appeals by the CBI and also the complainant. 
11. The judgment of the High Court is dated 11.10.2018 and
as   per   its   direction,   Board   was   to   decide   the   matter   afresh
within   six   weeks.     Assailing   the   order   of   the   High   Court,   two
special leave petitions were filed before this Court.  One by the
complainant   registered   as   SLP   (Crl.)   No.   10123   of   2018   and
the   other   by   the   CBI   registered   as   SLP   (Diary   No.   25451   of
2019).  This Court while issuing notice in the first special leave
petition filed by the complainant Barun Chandra Thakur, also
passed   an   order   of   status   quo   on   19.11.2018.     The   special
leave   petition   filed   by   the   CBI   was   clubbed/tagged   with   the
special leave petition of the complainant.   These matters have
remained pending for over 3 ½	 years.   From the record we do
not   find   any   effort   on   part   of   the   parties   for   early   hearing   or
disposal   of   the   two   petitions   for   over   3   years.     It   was   only   in
6

January,   2022   that   the   counsel   for   the   respondent   requested
that the matter may be taken up for hearing as the respondent
is in custody for more than three years and very soon, he will
be completing 21 years of age.   The matters were taken up on
a   number   of  occasions  and   the   arguments  of   both   sides   were
heard at length.
12. We   have   heard   Shri   Vikramjit   Banerjee,   learned
Additional Solicitor General for  the CBI­appellant, Shri Sushil
Tekriwal,   learned   counsel   for   the   complainant­appellant   and
Shri   Sidharth   Luthra,   learned   senior   counsel   for   the
respondent and perused the material on record.
13. Before   proceeding   to   deal   with   the   submissions
advanced,   it   would   be   appropriate   to   briefly   refer   to   the
statutory   provisions,   the   scheme   of   the   Act,   2015   and   the
necessity requiring a preliminary assessment under section 15
of the Act, 2015. Before coming of the Act, 2015, the Juvenile
Justice   (Care   and   Protection   of   Children)   Act,   2000 6
  was   in
force. Under the said enactment, all children below 18 years of
age   were   to   be   treated   as   juveniles   and   tried   as   such   by   the
Board.   It   was   only   after   the   coming   of   the   Act,   2015,   that   a
6  Hereinafter referred to as ‘Act, 2000’
7

further category was carved out of juveniles between 16 to 18
years   involved   in   heinous   offences.   They   were   subjected   to   a
preliminary   assessment   to   ascertain   whether   they   are   to   be
tried as a child by the Board or to be tried as an adult by the
Children’s Court.  However, for those above the age of 16 years
and   below   18   years,   if   the   Board   was   of   the   opinion   that   the
said Juvenile should not be tried as an adult, the Board would
continue with the trial as envisaged under the Act, 2015. 
14. The   Act,   2000   and   the   Act,   2015   were   enacted   with   the
following preamble:
“An Act to consolidate and amend the law relating
to children alleged and found to be in conflict with
law and children in need of care and protection by
catering to their basic needs through proper care,
protection,   development,   treatment,   social   re­
integration, by adopting   a child­friendly approach
in the adjudication and disposal of matters   in the
best   interest   of   children   and   for   their
rehabilitation   through   processes   provided,   and
institutions   and   bodies   established,   hereinunder
and for matters connected therewith or incidental
thereto …”
Relevant provisions of Act, 2015
15. Chapter   I   consists   of   sections   1   and   2   (which   is   the
definition compendium). Section 2(9) defines the “best interest
of  the  child”; section  2(12) defines a  “child”  to  mean  a person
who has not completed 18 years of age; section 2(13) defines a
“child   in   conflict   with   law”;   ‘Child   friendly’   is   defined   under
8

section   2(15);   the   ‘Children’s   Court’   is   defined   under   section
2(20);   ‘Heinous   Offences’   is   defined   under   section   2(33)   to
include   offences   for   which   the   minimum   punishment   is
imprisonment for seven years or more. 
16. Chapter   II   consists   of   section   3   which   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   as   the   case   may   be,   while   implementing   the
provisions   of   the   Act   shall   be   guided   by   the   fundamental
principles   enumerated   in   clauses   (i)   to   (xvi).   It   would   be
worthwhile   to   refer   to   some   of   the   principles;   clause   (i)
Principle   of   presumption   of   innocence:   any   child   shall   be
presumed   to   be   an   innocent   of   any   mala   fide   or   criminal
intent;   clause   (iii)   Principle   of   Participation:   every   child   will
have a right to be heard and to participate in all processes and
decisions   affecting   his   interest;   clause   (iv)   Principle   of   best
interest:   primary   consideration   in   all   decisions   regarding   the
child shall be in his best interest; clause (ix)  Principle of non­
waiver of rights:   it does not permit waiver of any of the right
9

of   the   child   and   even   non­exercise   of   a   fundamental   right
would not amount to waiver; clause (xvi)  Principles of natural
justice:   standards   of   fairness   shall   be   adhered   to   including
the   right  to   fair  hearing,  rule  against  bias  and  right   to  review
by   all   persons   or   bodies,   acting   in   a   judicial   capacity   under
this Act.  
17. Chapter   III   consisting   of   sections   4   to   9   deals   with   the
constitution   of   the   Board,   the   procedure   in   relation   to   the
Board,   powers,   functions   and   responsibilities   of   the   Board.
Sub­section   (1)   of   section   4   provides   for   establishment   of   a
Board   in   every   district   which   could   be   more   than   one,   to
exercise powers and discharge functions relating to children in
conflict   with   law   under   the   Act.   Sub­section   (2)   of   section   4
defines the constitution of the Board. Sub­section (3) provides
for   the   eligibility   of   the   social   workers   to   be   appointed   to   the
Board.   Sub­sections   (4),   (5),   (6)   and   (7)   further   provide
eligibility for selection, disqualification, term and training as a
member   of   the   Board.   Section   5   provides   that   if   during   the
course   of   any   inquiry   by   the   Board,   the   child   completes   the
age   of   eighteen   years   then   the   Board   will   continue   with   the
10

inquiry to pass final orders as if such person has continued to
be   a   child.   Section   6   provides   that   any   person   who   has
completed   eighteen   years   of   age   and   is   apprehended   for
committing an offence when he was below the age of eighteen
years, then, subject to the provisions of this section, he would
be treated as a child during the process of the inquiry. Section
7   provides   for   sittings   of   the   Board   for   transacting   its
businesses. It also refers to the coram of the Board. Section 8
defines the powers, functions and responsibilities of the Board.
Section   9   provides   for   the   procedure   to   be   followed   by   a
Magistrate,   who   has   not   been   empowered   to   exercise   the
powers of Board under the Act, when he is of the opinion that
any   alleged   offender   brought   before   him   is   a   child.   In   that
case, the Magistrate would immediately record his opinion and
forward   the   child   along   with   the   record   of   proceedings   to   the
Board having jurisdiction.
18. Chapter IV comprising of sections 10 to 26 deals with the
procedure in relation to children in conflict with law. Sections
10   and   11   provide   for   the   apprehension   of   a   child   in   conflict
with   law   and   as   to   how   he   should   be   dealt   with.   Section   12
deals with bail to a person who is apparently a child alleged to
11

be   in   conflict   with   law.   Section   13   provides   that   the   parents,
guardians   to   be   informed   forthwith.   Section   14   requires   the
Board to hold an inquiry regarding a child in conflict with law,
such   inquiry   to   be   conducted   and   appropriate   orders   passed
under sections 17 and 18 of the Act, 2015. 
19. Section 15 provides for preliminary assessment where the
alleged  offence  is  heinous   and   where   the  child   has   completed
or   is   above   the   age   of   16   years,   the   Board   is   required   to
conduct the 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 after such assessment, pass an order  in accordance with
sub­section (3) of section 18. If the Board is of the opinion that
the   child   needs   to   be   tried   as   an   adult   then   the   case   be
transferred   to   the   Children’s   Court   having   jurisdiction   to   try
such offence. Otherwise, the Board itself will proceed to try the
matter   as   a   summons   case   under   the   Code   of   Criminal
Procedure, 1973. 7
 
7   For short, ‘Cr.P.C.
12

20. Section 16 confers power on the Chief Judicial Magistrate
or the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate to review the pendency of
cases   before   the   Board   once   in   three   months   and   may   issue
necessary   directions   in   that   regard   depending   upon   the
pendency.  
21. Section 17 requires the Board to pass appropriate orders
where   after   inquiry,   the   Board   is   satisfied   that   the   child   has
not   committed   any   offence.   The   Board   may   also   pass
appropriate   orders   where   the   child   is   in   need   of   care   and
protection and refer him to the Child Welfare Committee.
22. Section 18 requires the Board to pass appropriate orders
where   the   child   is   found   to   be   in   conflict   with   law.   Different
categories   are   provided   and   various   powers   are   conferred   on
the Board to take care of such children who are below the age
of   sixteen   years   and   have   committed   heinous   offence   and   for
children   up   to   the   age   of   eighteen   years   who   have   committed
petty offence or a serious offence. Sub­section (1) of section 18
and its various clauses from (a) to (g) confer a variety of powers
on the Board for issuing necessary directions.  Sub­section (2)
13

gives   additional   power   to   the   Board   providing   for   education,
training,   counselling,   de­addiction   programmes   and   even
restricting   the   movement   of   the   child,   in   his   interest.   Sub­
section   (3)   provides   that   the   Board   if   after   the   preliminary
assessment   under   Section   15   passes   an   order   that   there   is   a
need   for   trial   of   the   child   as   an   adult,   then   the   Board   may
order   transfer   of   the   trial   of   such   a   case   to   the   Children’s
Court having jurisdiction.  
23. Section   19   deals   with   the   powers   conferred   on   the
Children’s   Court.   The   Children’s   Court   upon   receipt   of   the
preliminary   assessment   from   the   Board   will   decide   whether
there is need for trial of a child as an adult in accordance with
the   Cr.P.C.   and   pass   appropriate   orders   after   trial   subject   to
the   provisions   of   this   section   as   also   section   21.   However,   if
the Children’s Court feels that there is no need for trial of child
as   an   adult,   then,   it   may   conduct   an   inquiry   as   a   Board   and
pass   appropriate   orders   in   accordance   with   provisions   of
Section   18.   Sub­section   (2)   of   section   19   provides   that   the
Children’s Court will ensure that the final order with regard to
a child in conflict with law will include an individual care plan
14

for rehabilitation of the child including other directions. Under
sub­section (3), the Children’s Court will ensure that a child in
conflict with law remains in a place of safety till he attains the
age of 21 years and thereafter is transferred to jail. Proviso to
sub­section   (3)   ensures   that   reformative   services   including
education,   skill   development,   counselling,   behaviour
modification   therapy   and   psychiatric   support   are   provided
during the period the child is in a place of safety. Under sub­
section   (4),   the   Children’s   Court   is   to   ensure   that   there   is   a
periodic   follow   up   report   annually   either   by   the   Probation
Officer   or   the   District   Child   Protection   Unit   or   the   Social
Worker   for  evaluation   of   the  progress  of   the  child   and   also  to
ensure that there is no ill treatment to the child in any form.  
24. Section   20(1)   deals   with   the   powers   of   the   Children’s
Court with respect to the progress and evaluation of the child
even   after   he   attains   the   age   of   21   years   and   has   not
completed   the   term   of   stay.   Under   sub­section   (2)   of   section
20,   the   Children’s   Court   after   completing   the   procedure
provided   under   sub­section   (1)   may   pass   an   order   either   to
release   the   child   on   such   conditions   for   the   remainder   of   the
15

prescribed term of stay and or pass an order that the child will
complete the remainder of his term in jail.  
25. Section  21  prohibits   the  sentencing  of  a  child  in  conflict
with  law   to   death   or   life  imprisonment   without   the   possibility
of release.  
26. Under section 22 of the Act, it is mandated that Chapter
VIII of Cr.P.C., and any preventive detention law would not be
applied against any child.  
27. Under   section   23,   there   is   a   bar   that   a   child   in   conflict
with law would not be tried with the person who is not a child.
28. Under section 24, a protection is provided that a child in
conflict with law will not suffer any disqualification under any
such law on account of offence being established against him.
However, this protection will not be available to the child who
has completed or is above the age of 16 years and is found to
be   in   conflict   with   law   by   the   Children’s   Court   under   Section
19(1)(i).   Sub­section   (2)   of   section   24   provides   for   destruction
of records under different situations.  
16

29. Section   25   provides   that   all   pending   proceedings   before
any  Board or  Court on the date of commencement of  this  Act
would continue in the same Board or Court as if this Act had
not been enacted.  
30. Section   26   makes   provisions   with   respect   to   run   away
children   in   conflict   with   law.   The   above   takes   care   of   the
various   provisions   contained   in   Chapter   IV   dealing   with   the
procedure in relation to children in conflict with law.  
31. Under   the   Juvenile   Justice   (Care   and   Protection   of
Children) Model Rules, 2016 8
, it is only rule 10(A) which refers
to preliminary assessment into heinous offences by the Board.
Sub­rule (1) mentions that the first thing to be determined by
the Board is the age of the child as to whether he is below or
above the age of 16 years which is to be done as per section 14
of   the   Act.     Sub­rule   (2)   mentions   that   the   Board   may   take
assistance   of   the   experienced   psychologists   or   psycho­social
workers or other experts who have experience of working with
children   in   difficult   circumstances.       It   also   provides   that   the
8  Hereinafter referred to as the “Model Rules”
17

District   Child   Protection   Unit   would   have   a   panel   of   such
experts to be made available to the Board for its assistance or
otherwise the Board could access such experts independently.
Sub­rule   (3)   declares   that   the   child   shall   be   presumed   to   be
innocent   unless   proved   otherwise   while   making   the
preliminary   assessment.     Sub­rule   (4)   provides   for   the
consequential order to be passed by the Board where it holds
that   the   trial   of   the   child   is   to   be   carried   out   as   an   adult   for
which,   it   is   required   to   assign   reasons   and   further   to   provide
copy of order to the child forthwith.
32. We   are   not   quoting   all   the   provisions   referred   to   above
but only the provisions which are relevant, that are sections 4,
14,   15,   18   and   19   of   the   Act,   2015,   as   also   rule   10A   of   the
Model Rules. The same are reproduced below:
“ Section 4:   Juvenile Justice Board
(1)   Notwithstanding   anything   contained   in
the   Code   of   Criminal   Procedure,   1973,   the
State   Government   shall,   constitute   for   every
district, one or more Juvenile Justice Boards
for exercising the powers and discharging its
functions relating to children in conflict with
law under this Act. 
(2)   A   Board   shall   consist   of   a   Metropolitan
Magistrate   or   a   Judicial   Magistrate   of   First
Class   not   being   Chief   Metropolitan
Magistrate   or   Chief   Judicial   Magistrate
(hereinafter   referred   to   as   Principal
18

Magistrate)   with   at   least   three   years
experience and two social workers selected in
such manner as may be prescribed, of whom
at   least   one   shall   be   a   woman,   forming   a
Bench   and   every   such   Bench   shall   have   the
powers   conferred   by   the   Code   of   Criminal
Procedure,   1973   on   a   Metropolitan
Magistrate or, as the case may be, a Judicial
Magistrate of First Class. 
(3)   No   social   worker   shall   be   appointed   as   a
member of the Board unless such person has
been   actively   involved   in   health,   education,
or welfare activities pertaining to children for
atleast   seven   years   or   a   practicing
professional   with   a   degree   in   child
psychology, psychiatry, sociology or law. 
(4) No person shall be eligible for selection as
a   member   of   the   Board,   if   he   ––   (i)   has   any
past   record   of   violation   of   human   rights   or
child   rights;   (ii)   has   been   convicted   of   an
offence   involving   moral   turpitude,   and   such
conviction   has   not   been   reversed   or   has   not
been   granted   full   pardon   in   respect   of   such
offence;   (iii)   has   been   removed   or   dismissed
from   service  of   the  Central   Government   or   a
State   Government   or   an   undertaking   or
corporation   owned   or   controlled   by   the
Central   Government   or   a   State   Government;
(iv)   has   ever   indulged   in   child   abuse   or
employment   of   child   labour   or   any   other
violation of human rights or immoral act. 
(5)   The   State   Government   shall   ensure   that
induction   training   and   sensitisation   of   all
members   including   Principal   Magistrate   of
the Board on care, protection, rehabilitation,
legal   provisions   and   justice   for   children,   as
may   be   prescribed,   is   provided   within   a
19

period   of   sixty   days   from   the   date   of
appointment.
(6)   The   term   of   office   of   the   members   of   the
Board   and   the   manner   in   which   such
member may resign shall be such, as may be
prescribed. 
(7)   The   appointment   of   any   member   of   the
Board,   except   the   Principal   Magistrate,   may
be terminated after holding an inquiry by the
State Government, if he –– 
(i)   has   been   found   guilty   of   misuse   of
power vested under this Act; or 
(ii)   fails   to   attend   the   proceedings   of   the
Board   consecutively   for   three   months
without any valid reason; or 
(iii)   fails   to   attend   less   than   three­fourths
of the sittings in a year; or 
(iv)   becomes   ineligible   under   sub­section
(4) during his term as a member.
xxx xxx xxx
Section   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)   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
20

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)   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   ill­treatment   by   the   police   or   by   any
other person, including a lawyer or probation
officer   and   take   corrective   steps   in   case   of
such ill­treatment; 
(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
child­friendly   atmosphere   during   the
proceedings; 
21

(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.
Section   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: 
22

Provided that for such an assessment, the
Board   may   take   the   assistance   of
experienced   psychologists   or   psycho­social
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)   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.
xxx xxx xxx
Section   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
23

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 well­being 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; 
24

(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   sub­section   (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 de­addiction programme. 
(3)   Where   the   Board   after   preliminary
assessment   under   section   15   pass   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.
Section 19:   Powers of Children’s Court.
25

(1)   After   the   receipt   of   preliminary
assessment   from   the   Board   under   section
15, 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   twenty­one   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. 
26

(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   ill­treatment   to   the   child   in   any
form. 
(5) The reports under sub­section (4) shall be
forwarded to   the  Children´s  Court  for  record
and follow up, as may be required.
xxx xxx   xxx
Rule   10A.   Preliminary   assessment   into
heinous offences by Board ­ 
(1)   The   Board   shall   in   the   first   instance
determine   whether   the   child   is   of   sixteen
years of age or above; if not, it shall proceed
as per provisions of section 14 of the Act. 
(2)   For   the   purpose   of   conducting   a
preliminary   assessment   in   case   of   heinous
offences,   the   Board   may   take   the   assistance
of   psychologists   or   psycho­social   workers   or
other   experts   who   have   experience   of
working   with   children   in   difficult
circumstances.   A   panel   of   such   experts   may
be   made   available   by   the   District   Child
Protection   Unit,   whose   assistance   can   be
taken   by   the   Board   or   could   be   accessed
independently. 
(3)   While   making   the   preliminary
assessment,   the   child   shall   be   presumed   to
be innocent unless proved otherwise. 
(4)   Where   the   Board,   after   preliminary
assessment   under   section   15   of   the   Act,
27

passes an order that there is a need for trial
of   the   said   child   as   an   adult,   it   shall   assign
reasons   for   the   same   and   the   copy   of   the
order   shall   be   provided   to   the   child
forthwith.”
 
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE BOARD
33. In   the   present   case,   it   is   the   preliminary   assessment
made by the Board under section 15 of the Act, 2015, that the
respondent be tried as an adult, is under consideration. 
34. The   Board   on   record   had   the   SIR   submitted   by   the
Probation   Officer   in   the   prescribed   format.   It   had   also
interacted with the respondent on two occasions, firstly, when
he   was   produced   after   being   apprehended   before   the   Board
and secondly, at the time when it was conducting preliminary
assessment and allowed the respondent to address the Board.
The   Board   on   22.11.2017   had   also   called   for   report   from   one
expert psychologist. 
35. On   behalf   of   the   respondent,   applications   were   filed
before the Board, to comply with the provision of section 74 of
the   Act,   2015;   another   application   was   filed   to   provide   the
copy  of  the  SIR,  a copy  of  the psychologist  report and to  lead
evidence in rebuttal; and a third application was filed praying
28

for deferment of the preliminary assessment till such time the
investigating agency submits its report under rule 10(5) of the
Model   Rules.   The   Board   vide   order   dated   13.12.2017   passed
separate   orders   on   these   applications.   Firstly,   it   allowed   the
application   under   section   74   to   protect   the   identity   of   the
child. Secondly, it rejected the other two applications. In so far
as the application for providing documents was concerned, the
Board observed that access to the same would be given during
the   time   of   hearing   for   30   minutes.   The   third   application   for
deferment   of   the   proceedings   was   rejected   simpliciter.   The
Board   thereafter   proceeded   to   pass   the   order   of   preliminary
assessment on 20.12.2017.
36. Before   the   Board,   the   counsel   for   the   respondent   had
raised the following arguments:
(i) The   intent   of   legislature   was   never   to   send   all
Juveniles   above   the   age   of   16   years   involved   in
heinous offences to be tried as adults. 
(ii) The   Investigating   agency   had   not   completed   the
investigation   and   no   interim   report   or   final   report
had been placed before the Board. 
(iii) There was no compliance of rule 10(5) of the Model
Rules, as such the Board could not proceed with the
29

preliminary assessment under section 15 as it would
be incapacitated to make an assessment.
(iv) Due and adequate opportunity was not provided as
copies   of   the   SIR   and   reports   of   the   expert
psychologists were not supplied to the respondent or
his guardian or counsel.
(v) There   was   no   previous   history   or   criminal
antecedents   of   the   respondent.   There   was   no   report
of any previous violence by the respondent.
(vi) Even   the   reports   of   the   experts   were   not   complete
and   the   recommendation   given   for   further
assessment   by   superior   organization   was   not
resorted to by the Board.
(vii)  The expert reports were not conclusive.
(viii) The   SIR   reflected   that   the   respondent   had   good
behavior with friends, teachers and neighbors.
(ix)   Lastly,   it   was   argued   that   the   theory   propounded
by   the   CBI   that   the   crime   was   committed   to   get   the
examinations   postponed   could   not   have   been   a
probable reason. 
37. The   Board   considered   all   the   submissions   and   after
discussing all the four aspects of section 15 regarding  mental
capacity and physical capacity to commit the offence, ability to
understand   the   consequences   of   the   offence   and   the
30

circumstances   under   which   allegedly   the   offence   was
committed, came to the conclusion that respondent should be
tried   as   an   adult   and,   accordingly,   passed   an   order   under
section 18(3). Relevant portion of the Juvenile Justice Board’s
order dated 20.12.2017 is reproduced below: 
“13.   It   is   alleged   that   on   dated   08.09.2017,
Juvenile in conflict with law   Bholu  in the area
of   P.S.   Bhondsi   committed   the   Murder   of
Master   Prince   in   the   premises   of   Ryan
International   School,   Bhondsi.   On   the   day   of
commission   of   alleged   Act   age   of   Juvenile   in
conflict   with   law   was   above   16   years.   It   is
relevant   to   mention   here   that   for   the   purpose
of   preliminary   assessment   of   Juvenile   and   to
find   out   what   is   the   physical   and   mental
capacity   of   juvenile,   ability   to   understand   the
consequences   of   offence   by   juvenile   and   the
circumstances   in   which   he   committed   the
alleged   offence,   the   juvenile   has   been   heard
personally   by   the   board   on   22.11.2017   and
various   questions   have   been   put   to   him   in
order   to   assess   his   capacity   to   commit   and
understand   the   consequences   of   the   acts
which culminated in to registration of present
F.I.R.  against and juvenile in conflict with law
Bholu   gave   answer   to   all   questions   very
confidently. This board can well recall the time
when   juvenile   in   conflict   with   law   produced
before it during personal hearing of juvenile in
conflict   with   law,   he   fairly   explained   the
circumstances in which he committed the acts
resulted   in   to   present   inquiry   along   with   the
manner of commission thereof and now during
the   time   of   recording   his   statement   for
preliminary   assessment   when   juvenile   in
conflict   with   law   narrated   a   different   story
excluding   his   role   in   the   alleged   incident   well
31

indicates that juvenile in conflict with law also
knows   to   cook   up   a   story   in   order   to   save
himself   which   in   turn   goes   to   show   that   he
has adequate mental capacity.
***
16.  Over   all  conclusion   of  Social   Investigation
report   of   Juvenile   in   conflict   with   law   shows
that   he   is   below   average   student   in   studies
but   good   in   music   especially   in   piano.   He   is
aggressive   in   nature   and   also   shouted   over
other   students.   He   used   to   consume   liquor
and   also   used   mobile   phone   in   school
premises. He is very    short  tempered, restless
boy and also lacks stability. Just after alleged
incident   he   appeared   in   exam   but   was   upset
and   not   writing   anything   in   exam   and   on
asking  by  teacher  Deepshikha  he  disclosed  to
her   that   he   saw   a   child   was   fallen   and   blood
was   coming   from   his   body   and   due   to   that
reason   he   was   upset.   Juvenile   also   remain
upset due to quarrel between his parents.
17.   As   per   section   15   of   the   act   in   order   to
preliminary   assessment   of   juvenile   in   conflict
with law  the  board can  take the  assistance of
any   psychologist   or   any   other   expert.   This
board   was   of   the   opinion   that   in   this   matter
there   is   need   of   assistance   of   a   psychologist
for   the   preliminary   assessment   of   juvenile   in
conflict with law so report of psychologist also
sought   in   this   matter.   Dr.   Joginder   Kairo
Clinical Psychologist, P.G.I.M.S., Rohtak in his
report   conducted   two   tests   on   juvenile   in
conflict   with   law   to   prepare   his   report.   After
both   tests   he   give   his   finding   that   IQ   of
juvenile  in  conflict  with  law   noted  to  be  95 in
the   category   of   average   intellectual
functioning.   I.Q­95   showing   average
intelligence.   This   report   also   shows   that   it   is
suggested by the expert that if require further
32

assessment   the   juvenile   in   conflict   with   law
may   be   sent   to   Institute   of   Mental   Health,
University   of   Health   Sciences,   Rohtak.   This
boards   feels   it   not   necessary   to   sent   the
juvenile   to   Institute   of   Mental   Health,
University   of   Health   Sciences,   Rohtak   for   any
further assessment because from the report of
psychologist   it   is   clear   that   I.Q.   level   of
juvenile in conflict with law is average. 
18. After having considered all the record and
having   heard   both   the   sides   and   the   juvenile
personally,   this   board   is   of   the   considered
opinion that juvenile in conflict with law Bholu
had sufficient mental and physical capacity to
commit   the   offence   alleged   against   him   and
also he had the adequate ability to understand
the   consequences   of   the   acts   committed   by
him. 
19.   Bholu   is   well   built   boy   and   is   studied   in
11 th
  class.   Juvenile   himself   stated   before   this
board   that   he   is   physically   and   mentally   fit
and   not   suffering   from   any   kind   of   disease.
His   I.Q.   level   shows   that   he   is   mentally   fit
so  it   can   not  be   said   that   he  did   not   know
the   consequences   of   acts   alleged   to   be
committed   by   him .   During   the   personal
hearing,   juvenile   admitted   that   he   confessed
before   this   board   but   same   was   under
pressure of CBI. During his statement he was
asked   a   specific   question   that   he   requested
from   this   board   that   he   wants   to   reside   with
CBI but he answered that he requested as CBI
asked him to do so. It is not possible that CBI
tortured   him,   beaten   him   but   despite   that   he
requested   to   stay   with   CBI   just   on   their
asking.  He  also   stated   that   he  knew   very   well
that   present   case   registered   upon   him
regarding   the   murder   of   a   child,   he   do   not
knew this name despite the fact that child also
33

learn   music   with   him.   He   also   stated   that   he
was   the   witness   of   this   incident   as   he   saw
Prince   first   in   injured   condition.   From   the
statement   of   juvenile   recorded   during   his
personal assessment, it indicates that he is
mature enough and all these facts satisfied
this   board   to   conclude   that   juvenile   Bholu
was   having   sufficient   maturity   and   ability
to   understand   the   consequences   of   action
on the day of alleged occurrence.  
20. In view of the above discussion, this board
of the considered opinion that there is a need
of   trial   of   juvenile   in   conflict   with   law  
Bholu   as   an   adult.   Consequently,   in   view   of
Section   18(3)   of   Juvenile   Justice   (Care   &
Protection   of   Children)   Act,   2015   the   case
stands   transferred   to   the   Ld.   Special
Children’s   Court,   Gurugram.   Case   file   be   put
up   before   Ld.   District   &   Sessions   Judge,
Gurugram with a request to transfer the same
to Ld. Children Court having jurisdiction to try
the matter. Juvenile in conflict with law Bholu
Singh…   Raghav   is   also   directed   to   produce
before   the   Ld.   District   &   Sessions   Judge,
Gurugram on 22.12.2017. File complete in all
respect   be   sent   to   the   court   of   Ld.   District   &
Sessions Judge, Gurugram well in time.
(emphasis supplied)”
38. In appeal, on behalf of the respondent, similar arguments
were   raised   before   the   Children’s   Court   which   also   dealt   with
the   same   in   detail   and   approved   the   decision   taken   by   the
34

Board.     Relevant   portion   of   Children’s   Court’s   order   dated
21.05.2018 is reproduced below:  [
“17…………So  impugned  order  cannot  be said
as having been passed without any application
of   mind   and   contrary   to   the   statutory
provisions.   The   statement   of   the   ‘JCL’   before
the   Board   recorded   for   the   purposes   of
preliminary   assessment,   the   Expert   Reports,
the   sequence   of   the   occurrence   running
narrated   by   the   investigating   agency   all   are
well   reflecting   the   mental   and   physical
capacity of the ‘JCL’ and the circumstances in
which   he   allegedly   committed   the   murder   of
‘Prince’   and   his   ability   to   understand   the
consequences of said offence and these all are
straightaway running against the appellant. 
18. It is not out of place to mention here that
an order qua need for trial of child as an adult
required   to   be   passed   by   the   Board   as   per
provisions   contained   under   Section   18(3)   of
the Act after making a preliminary assessment
in case of heinous offences is only on the basis
of   satisfaction   of   the   Board   by   exercising   its
judicious   acumen   for   which   calling   of   expert
opinion is also left at his discretion. By adding
explanation to Section 15(1) it is clarified that
preliminary assessment is not a trial. No right
to   second   appeal   is   provided   under   the   Act
against   such   an   order.   It   all   indicated   that
intention   of   legislation   is   to   recognize   the
wisdom   of   the   Board   regarding   forum   of   trial
of   a   child   falling   in   the   age   of   16­18   years
running charged with heinous offence. If there
is  no   blatant   misuse  of   said  authority   and   no
irregularity   going   to   the   depth   of   the   matter
the   discretion   exercised   by   the   Board   is
required to be honoured. 
35

19.   Before   concluding,   this   court   would   also
like to comment regarding statutory provisions
contained under Sections 3(x) & 99 of the Act
as   learned   defence   counsel   have   argued   at
length   for   said   provision.   As   per   clause   (I)   of
Section   99,   all   reports   related   to   child   and
considered   by   the   Committee   or   the   Board
shall   be   treated   as   confidential.   The   proviso
attached   to   this   clause   prescribes   that
Committee   or   the   Board,   as   the   case   may   be,
may,   if   it   so   thinks   fit,   communicate   the
substance   thereof   to   another   Committee,   or
Board or to the child or to the child’s parent or
guardian,   and   may   give   such   Committee   or
the   Board   or   the   child   or   parent   or   guardian,
an   opportunity   of   producing   evidence   as   may
be relevant  to the matter  stated in  the report.
Clause   (II)   of   Section   99   then   prescribes   that
notwithstanding   anything   contained   in   this
Act,   the   victim   shall   not   be   denied   access   to
their   case   record,  orders  and   relevant   papers.
Learned   defence   counsel   has   gone   making
much   stress   over   the   clause(II)   and   has   gone
asserting that since victim shall not be denied
access to the case record and relevant  papers
as   Section   3(x)   while   prescribing   general
principles   to   be   followed   in   administration   of
Act   recognizes   the   principle   of   equality   and
postulates   that   there   shall   be   no
discrimination against a child on any grounds
including   sex,   caste   and   equality   of   access,
opportunity   and   treatment,   so   child/’JCL’
should   also   be   given   a   right   of   access   to   the
confidential reports also at par with the victim
which   Juvenile   Justice   Board   has   denied   to
the   appellant.   This   court   finds   no
discrimination   with   the   child/’JCL’     by   the
provisions   of   Section   99.   Once   Section   99
declares   all   reports   to   be   treated   as
confidential,   then   they   are   confidential   for
both the parties and even victim would not be
36

having   a   right   to   obtain   the   certified   copy   of
such a report in the name that victim shall not
be   denied   access   to   the   case   record,   orders
and   relevant   papers.   The   access   to   the   victim
to confidential reports is not permitted in very
words   while   granting   him   access   to   all   other
relevant   papers   and   the   case   record   under
clause (II) of Section 99, so clause (I) of Section
99   will   prevail   which   restricts   said   access   to
all and sundry. Since in the present matter no
copy   of   confidential   report   has   ever   been
supplied to victim, so it does lie in the mouth
of   appellant/’JCL’   that   he   is   being
discriminated   so   far   the   right   to   access   to
confidential reports is concerned.
20.   In   view   of   the   above   discussions,   the
impugned   order   show   that   the   Juvenile
Justice Board has considered the correctness,
legality   and   propriety   of   the   matter   and   did
not act with any irregularity at the time giving
findings   of   fact   relating   to   appellant.   There   is
no   illegality,   perversity   or   infirmity   in   the
impugned   order.   The   appeal   lacks   merits   and
is   liable   to   be   dismissed.   The   appeal   is,
accordingly,  dismissed. Papers be  tagged  with
the   main   case   file   of   the   trial   titled   as   “State
Vs.   Bholu”   running   fixed   for   04.07.2018   for
hearing the parties on the aspect of charge.”
39. The   order   of   the   Children’s   Court   dated   21.05.2018   was
challenged   by   way   of   criminal   revision   before  the   High   Court.
The High Court allowed the criminal revision and after setting
aside   both   the   impugned   orders   passed   by   the   Additional
Sessions Judge as also the Board, remanded the matter to the
37

Board   for   fresh   consideration   after   assessing   the   intelligence,
maturity   and   physical   fitness   as   to   how   the   child   in   conflict
with   law   was   in   a   position   to   know   the   consequences.   It   also
provided that the necessary  exercise be taken within  a period
of six weeks and further that while conducting the preliminary
assessment   the   certificate   of   the   psychologist   of   the
G overnment hospital be obtained.
40. What weighed before the High Court was: 
(i) There   was   violation   of   principles   of   natural   justice
and   fair   play   as   adequate   opportunity   was   not
provided;
(ii) Copies of documents relied upon by the Board were
not provided to the respondent;
(iii) The reports of the experts were incomplete;
(iv) The   recommendation   by   the   expert   to   refer   the
child   to   higher   organization   for   assessment   was
not acted upon by the Board;
(v) The   two   tests   conducted   by   the   experts   were
apparently  not  relevant   and  related  to   children  of
different ages;
(vi) That   the   Board   and   the   Children’s   Court   had   no
material   before   them   to   assess   as   to   how   the
respondent  knew  the  consequences of  the  offence
38

and   also   the   circumstances   in   which   he   allegedly
committed the offence; and
(vii)   The   findings   by   the   Board   and   the   Children’s
Court were without any material and reasoning.   
41. Relevant   extracts   from   the   judgment   of   the   High   Court
are as under:
“… The proviso to Section 15 enables the Board to
take   the   assistance   of   any   experienced
psychologist   or   other   experts   to   make   the
Preliminary Assessment. It is clearly mentioned in
para   No.17   of   order   dated   20.12.2017   passed   by
the   Board  that  in   case,   the  opinion/assistance   of
any   expert   is   required,   the   same   be   taken.   It   is
necessary   to   assess   the   mental   capacity   of   the
juvenile. It was mandatory for the Board to assess
the   mental   capacity   of   the   alleged   offender   to
commit   such   an   offence   and   also   the   ability   to
understand   the   consequences   of   the   same.   It   is
also   clear   from   the   order   that   the   clinical
psychologist   has   himself   suggested   that   if   any
further   assessment   is   required,   the   juvenile   may
be   sent   to   the   Institute   of   Mental   Health   at
Rohtak.   However,   it   has   completely   been   ignored
by   the   Board   and   the   assessment   is   based   on
inappropriate   tests,   namely,   coloured   Progressive
Matrices   (CPM)   and   Malin's   Intelligence   Scale   for
India Children (MISIC) meant for children between
the ages of 5­11½	 and 5­15 has been taken as the
basis for the determination of the mental capacity
of a child of 16	
½	 years. Both the Board as well as
the   Appellate   Authority   have   completely   ignored
this   fact.   The   petitioner   wanted   to   cross   examine
the   psychologist   regarding   the   same   but   his
request   was   declined   and   no   permission   was
granted   to   him.   The   social   investigation   report   is
also  self  contradictory  and  the  same  is  not  worth
considering.   The   copies   of   the   tests,   in   question,
were   not   provided   to   the
petitioner/parents/guardian   but   were   shown   just
39

prior   to   the   hearing   of   arguments.   It   was   not
practically possible to understand 35 pages of the
report by any layman in a time period of less than
30   minutes.   However,   in   a   time   period   of   30
minutes,   the   petitioner   got   to   have   a   look   at   the
record   of   Dr.   Joginder   Singh   Kairo,   Clinic
Psychologist.   It  came   out   that   he   had   carried   the
assessment   on   the   basis   of   two   tests   i.e   (i)
Coloured   Progressive   Matrices   (CPM)   and   (ii)
Malin's   Intelligence   Scale   for   Indian   Children
(MISIC). The petitioner (represented by his father)
and   his   counsel   were   having   no   idea   about  these
tests.   Subsequently,   they   tried   to   find   out   and
came   to   know   that   those   tests   were   absolutely
irrelevant   to   the   case   of   the   petitioner   and   could
not be used for making the mental assessment of
the   petitioner.   The   basic   book   on   Clinical   Child
Psychology   written   by   Radhey   Sham   and
Azizuddin   Khan   categorically   states   that   Malin's
test of Intelligence for children is made for 5 to 15
years   of   children.   Since   the   petitioner   was   16.75
years   old,   when   these   tests   were   conducted   on
him,   which   were   not   correct   tests   and   have
resulted   in   wrong   results.   Said   expert   himself
stated   in   his   report   that   it   would   be   appropriate
that   further   assessment   be   made   by   a   higher
authority. This resulted in the petitioner doubting
the   credentials   of   the   so   called   experts.   Only
because   of   this   reason,   the   petitioner   not   only
sought   copies   of   the   reports   but   also   wanted   to
cross   examine   them   so   as   to   check   the   veracity
and   the   credentials   of   the   experts   and   their
reports.   However,   he   was   not   allowed   in   spite   of
specific   request   and   averments   made   to   that
effect, leading to travesty of justice. The IQ test of
the   petitioner   was   conducted   when   he   was   more
than 16 years and 9 months of age. An IQ of 95 at
the age 16.75 would necessarily translate to 15.67
years,   going   by   the   formula   for   determining   the
mental   age   of   any   child,   which   is   mental
age/Biological   Age   x   100.   This   means   that   the
petitioner­child   has   been   determined   to   have   a
mental age of less than 16 years as per the report
of   so   called   expert.   Even   as   per   said   report,   the
40

petitioner   had   to   be   necessarily   treated   to   be
below   16   years.   As   the   tests   in   question,   in   any
case,   are   for   children   below   the   age   of   15   years,
the   IQ   of   95,   determined   by   these   tests,   would
obviously   translate   to   a   mental   age   of   much   less
than 15 years in any case….
                        xxxx
The   Appellate   Court   has   further   held   that   there
was   no   requirement   of   giving   any   statement   of
witnesses   or   documents   etc.   to   the
petitioner/guardian/parent,   which   is   absolutely
in   contradiction   with   the   provisions   of   Rule   10(5)
read   with   Sections   3(iii)   and   (xvi)   read   with
Section   8(3)   of   the   Act.   As   a   matter   of   fact,   all
provisions   of   the   Act   as   well   as   the   Rules   made
thereunder   have   to   be   read   harmoniously,   to
achieve the objective of the Act. 
However,   learned   counsel   for   the   respondent­CBI
has tried to convince the Court by stating that the
reports/documents   are   not   required   to   be
supplied   by   considering   the   factum   of
confidentiality. 
The   plea   of   confidentiality   as   submitted   by
learned counsel for the respondent­CBI is actually
for the protection of the child from third party by
considering   the   privacy   of   the   child.   It   cannot   be
interpreted that a delinquent child would not get a
fair   hearing,   whereas,   it   is   the   requirement   of
Section 8(3) of the Act that the participation of the
child and the parent or guardian is to be at every
step   of   the   process.   Section   3   especially   states
that   a   positive   interpretation   has   to   be   given   to
ensure that an environment is created so that the
child   should   feel   comfortable.   The   confidentiality
is   required   with   regard   to   third   party   just   to
protect   the   interest   of   the   child.   All   the   reports
related   to   the   child   and   considered   by   the
Committee   or   by   the   Board   are   required   to   be
treated as confidential subject to the proviso.
41

Even the Central Bureau of Investigation has also
admitted   in   the   proceedings   before   the   Board   as
well   as   the   Appellate   Authority   that   it   does   not
have   such   officers,   who   are   specially   trained   to
undertake   such   investigation,   involving   children.
Meaning   thereby,   it   is   clear   that   the   Central
Bureau   of   Investigation   does   not   have   such   an
infrastructure   to   conduct   the   investigation   for
reaching   to   its   logical   conclusion   keeping   in   view
the special provisons of the Act. All these grounds
were mentioned before the Appellate Authority but
were not taken into consideration. 
The   argument   raised   by   learned   counsel   for   the
respondent­CBI   that   this   Court   has   a   limited
jurisdiction to invoke in the revision petition, does
not carry any weight because as per provisions of
Section   102   of   the   Act,   in   case,   there   is   any
illegality   and   perversity   or   there   is   non­
compliance   of   mandatory   provisions,   this   Court
has a power to exercise the revisional jurisdiction.
This   view   has   been   supported   by   the   law   laid
down in cases Jagannath Choudhary vs Ramayan
Singh   2002(2)   RCR   (Criminal)   813   and   Rajinder
Singh   vs   Vishal   Dingra   2015(8)   RCR   (Criminal)
453.
In view of the facts and law position as discussed
above,   the   present   petition   is   allowed   and
impugned   order   dated   20.12.2017   passed   by   the
Juvenile   Justice   Board,   Gurugram   and   order
dated   21.05.2018   passed   by   the   Additional
Sessions Judge, Gurugram are set aside. The case
is   remanded   back   to   the   Board   for   afresh
consideration   after   assessing   the   intelligency,
maturity,   physical   fitness   as   to   how   the   juvenile
in conflict with law was in a position to know the
consequences   of   the   offence.   The   necessary
exercise be done within a period of six weeks from
the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. It
is   also   relevant   to   mention   here   that   while
conducting   preliminary   assessment,   the   opinion
of   psychologist   of   the   Government   hospital   be
obtained. ”
42

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF COMPLAINANT­APPELLANT:
42. The   arguments   of   Mr.   Sushil   Tekriwal,   learned   counsel
on behalf of the complainant­appellant are summarised below:
(i) ‘Best interest of child’ or ‘presumption of innocence’
etc. does not mean immunity from criminal charges.
Intent   of   the   act   is   to   reform   the   child   in   conflict
with   law   and   also   to   subject   them   to   penal
consequences.
(ii)   Children   aged   16­18,   prosecuted   for   heinous
crimes   have   been   assigned   a   separate   class   by
legislature,   therefore,   they   may   be   denied   the
protective   cover.     The   purpose   of   this   Act   is   not   to
give shelter to accused of heinous offences. 
(iii) The   respondent   fulfils   all   the   conditions   laid
down   under   section   15   of   the   Act,   2015   and   the
Board   had   rightly   held   that   he   should   be   tried   as
an adult.
(iv)   Law   is   clear   that   the   Board   ‘may’   take   help   of
experienced   psychologists,   psycho­social   workers
or other experts. The word ‘may’ has to be read as
‘may’   only   and   the   legislative   competency   to   make
43

the   enactment   in   question   is   not   in   controversy.
Even section 101(2) of the Act, 2015 uses the word
‘may’ with respect to opinion of medical expert. 
(v)  Findings of the Medical Board should have been left
to   medical   experts   as   Courts   have   no   expertise   in
such   matters.   The   opinion   of   the   Medical   Board   is
final and cannot be questioned before the Court.
(vi) Social   and   medical   report   was   provided   to   all   the
stakeholders.   However,   the   request   for   cross­
examination   was   declined   on   the   ground   that
section   15   is   only   a   preliminary   assessment   and
not   a   trial.   Further,   according   to   section   99  of   the
Act,   2015   all   the   reports   related   to   the   child
considered by the Board be treated as confidential. 
(vii) Revisional   jurisdiction   of   the   High   Court   under
section 102 is limited with regard to the power to
call   for   and   examine   the   records   of   an   inferior
Court   in   order   to   satisfy   itself   of   the   legality   and
propriety of proceedings or orders made in cases.  
(viii) There   is   no   illegality   in   concurrent   findings   of
the   two   Courts   below.   The   High   Court   broadened
its   jurisdiction   too   far,   going   into   correctness   of
44

the   medical   board   report   and   the   correctness   of
various other factual aspects. 
(ix) The   issue   of   remanding   the   case   for   fresh
consideration   is   redundant   now   in   terms   of   its
impossibility of performance. 
(x) In  support  of the  above  submissions, Mr. Tekriwal
has placed reliance on the following judgments: 
(a)   Kishan Paswan v. UOI (Civil Misc. W.P. No.
5044 of 2020){paras 28(97) and 35 (v)} ,
(b)  Mukarrab v. State of UP, (2017) 2 SCC 210
(para 27),
(c)   Controller   of   Defense   Accounts   (Pension)
and ors. v. S. Balachandran Nair (2005) 13
SCC 128 ,
(d)   Amit   Kapoor   v.   Ramesh   Chander   &   Anr
(2012) 9 SCC 469 (paras 12 and 13),
(e)  Rajendra Rajoriya v. Jagat Narain Thapak
and Anr (2018) 17 SCC 234,
(f)  Jabar Singh v. Dinesh (2010) 3 SCC 757, 
(g)  Chandavarkar Sita Ratna Rao v. Ashalata
S. Guram (1986) 4 SCC 447,
(h)   Madanlal   Fakirchand   Dudheya   v.   S.
Changdeo Sugar Mills, 1962 AIR 1543,
(i) Chinnamar   Kathiam   v.   Ayyavoo,   AIR   1982
SC 137,
(j) Jyoti Prakash Rai @ Jyoti Prakash v. State
of Bihar, (2008) 15 SCC 223 and 
(k)  Kent v. United States (383, US, 541, 1966).
45

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF CBI­APPELLANT:
43. The   arguments   of   Shri   Vikramjit   Banerjee,   learned
Additional Solicitor General on behalf of the CBI­appellant   are
summarised below: 
(i) The   counsel   for   the   CBI   drew   attention   to   the
Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Act, 2015,
wherein   the   systems   under   the   Act,   2000   are
deemed   as   ill­equipped   to   tackle   16­18   year   old
offenders,   and   an   observation   about   a   rapid
increase in heinous child offenders of the said age is
also elucidated upon.
(ii) The   counsel   also   highlighted   the   provisions   under
section   15   of   the   said   Act   which   provide   for
preliminary   assessment   on   commission   of   heinous
crimes   by   children   above   16   years   to   be   conducted
by   the   Board,   which   ‘may’   take   the   assistance   of
experienced psychologists, psycho­social workers, or
other experts. 
(iii) It   was   also   submitted   that   this   preliminary
assessment is distinct from a trial. 
46

(iv) The  counsel  also referred  to section  103 of  the Act,
2015,   which   lays   down   the   requirement   to   follow   as
far   as   possible,   procedure   laid   down   by   the   Cr.P.C.,
during Board inquiries for trials of summons cases.
(v)   The   counsel   accentuated   rules   10   and   10A   of   the
Model   Rules.   Rule   10A   permits   the   Board   to   take
assistance   from   psychological   experts   and   social
workers   while   making   the   preliminary   assessment
which has been followed by the Board. 
(vi) Rule 10(5) which mandates the Child Welfare Police
Officer   to   produce   the   statements   of   witnesses
recorded   by   him   and   other   documents   produced
during   the   course   of   investigation   within   a   month
from the date of the child’s first production before the
Board. Copies of the same to be given to the child or
his   parent/guardian,   were   also   brought   forth   and
highlighted. 
(vii)  There is no requirement under the Act, 2015 for the
final   investigation   to   be   completed   before   the
preliminary   assessment   takes   place.   Moreover,   the
Act, 2015 necessitates abidance by the Cr.P.C. to the
maximum   extent,   therefore,   in   line   with   the   same,
47

the   accused   cannot   be   provided   with   the   case   diary
during   investigation.   Reference   is   also   made   to
section 99 of the Act, 2015 regarding  confidentiality.
Hence,   the   counsel   contends   that   rule   10(5)   of   the
Model   Rules   must   be   read   down.   The   High   Court
committed an error in holding otherwise.
(viii) For   the   preliminary   assessment,   the   Board   must
consider the mental and physical capacity of the child
to commit the offence, and this assessment has to be
completed   within   three   months   of   the   child’s   first
production   before   the   Board   after   which,   a   re­
assessment is impermissible. 
(ix) The judgement of the High Court was also attacked
by   asserting   that   the   requirement   for   cross­
examination   of   the   psychologist,   and   supply   of   the
expert’s   reports   to   the   respondent   or   his   guardians
prior to the passing of the preliminary assessment was
erroneous. 
(x) The requirement to complete the investigation within a
month   from   the   first   date   of   production   of   the   child
before   the   Board   and   to   supply   a   copy   of   the   final
report to the child or his parents, prior to the making
48

of   the   preliminary   assessment   was   also   called   into
doubt. 
(xi) The   CBI   attempted   to   prove   its   proper   conduct   by
asserting   that   Bholu   was   treated   in   a   child­friendly
manner, and examined in line with the Act, 2015 and
was   apprehended   in   the   presence   of   his   father   and
other requisite authorities.
(xii) The   CBI   claims   that   Bholu   was   interviewed   in   a
cautious   and   friendly   manner,   in   the   presence   of   the
Probation   and   Child   Welfare   Officer,   along   with
independent   witnesses.   Moreover,   he   voluntarily
admitted his involvement in the murder of Prince, and
was   sent   to   an   Observation   Home,   post   his
apprehension, instead of being held in a lock up.
(xiii) Since the CBI was not able to satisfactorily complete
its   investigation,   the   Board   granted   three   days   of
judicial   custody   of   Bholu,   wherein   he   was   to   be
accompanied by a Board member, and placed at Seva
Kutir (Observation Home), post his custody.
(xiv) In  support  of  the  above  submissions,  Mr.  Vikramjit
Bannerji   has   placed   reliance   on   the   following
judgments:
49

(a) Balkaram   v.   State   of   Uttarakhand   &   Ors.   (2017)
7SCC 668 ,
(b) Shilpa   Mittal   v.   State   of   NCT   &   Another,   Crl.
Appeal No. 34 of 2020,
(c) G. Sundarrajan v. Union of India & Ors. (2013) 6
SCC 620.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT­BHOLU:
44. The   arguments   of   Mr.   Siddharth   Luthra,   learned   Senior
Advocate on behalf of the respondent are summarised below: 
(i)   The   essential   modification   in   the   Act,   2015   is   the
exception created for the age of 16 to 18 years. In cases of
heinous   offences,   as   defined   under   section   2(33)   of   the
Act,   2015,   a   child   can   be   treated   as   an   adult   subject   to
the inquiry to be carried out in terms of sections 14 and
15. This Court held that, while interpreting the scheme of
the Act, the interests of children should be protected and
to treat them as adults is an exception to the rule.
(ii)   While   conducting   an   inquiry   under   the   Act,   the   Board
has to keep in mind the overall scheme of the Act.
(iii)     The   Act,   2015   provides   that   the   Investigating   Officer
must   be   a   trained   Police   Officer,   capable   of   dealing   with
50

children   and   designated   as   a   Child   Welfare   Police   Officer
(CWPO). However, in this case the IO was not a designated
CWPO   under   the   Act.   Section   107   further   requires   the
creation   of   a   special   juvenile   police   unit   to   “exclusively
deal   with   the   children”   and   with   “aptitude,   appropriate
training and orientation”.  
(iv)  The child was kept in police lock­up and subsequently a
confession was extracted from him which was relied upon
by   the   Board.   The   same   is   contrary   to   rule   8(3)(v)   and   to
the principle of presumption of innocence enshrined under
section 3(i) of the Act, 2015 read with rule 10 A (3) of the
Model Rules. 
(v)   Due   to   the   non­submission   of   documents   to   the   child
prior   to   the   hearing,   sections   8(3)(a)   and   8(3)(b),   section
14(5)(c)   as   well   as   section   3   of   the   Act,   2015   were
violated.   Additionally,   granting   only   30   minutes   was
insufficient to peruse and scan through the record.
(vi) On   the   date   of   the   psychological   assessment,   the
respondent   was   aged   16   years   and   7   months.   However,
the   tests   administered   to   him   were   appropriate   for
children   upto   11   years   (CPM)   and   15   years   (Malins).
According   to   the   psychologist,   Dr   Kairo,   the   respondent
51

was  found  to   be  cooperative  and  communicative.  On  the
basis of the tests administered his IQ was noted to be 95,
and it was further noted “If required further assessment,
he   may   be   sent   to   Institute   of   Mental   Health,   University
of Health Sciences, Rohtak.”
(vii)   The   entitlement   of   respondent   to   access   the   records
before   the   preliminary   assessment   takes   place,   is
challenged by the appellants under section 99 of the Act,
2015.   Section   14(5)(c)   provides   that   every   child   brought
before   the   Board   shall   be   heard   and   permitted   to
participate   in   the   inquiry   and   rule   10(5)   states   that   a
copy of the statement of witnesses recorded by him shall
also   be   given   to   the   child   or   parent   or   guardian   of   the
child.
(viii)     Reliance   has   been   placed   on   the   statement   of   the
Hon’ble Minister for Women and Child Development in the
Lok   Sabha   during   the   discussion   on   the   Juvenile   Justice
(Care   and   Protection   of   Children)   Bill,   2014   stating   that
the   assessment   of   the   Board   is   not   one­sided   and   the
Board will take due notice of the views of the child.
(ix)   With respect to the plea of CBI to read down rule 10(5) of
the Model Rules, the counsel submitted that reading down
52

the said rule was not raised before the High Court or this
Court   before   filing   of   the   written   submissions.
Alternatively, a provision can be read down to save it from
being   declared unconstitutional  or  illegal, which is  not  so
in   the   present   case.   There   being   no   challenge   towards
constitutionality,   any   attempt   towards   this   would   be   in
conflict with the objects of the Act.
(x)   By using words such as “clever” and reading the alleged
confession   against   him   being   a   complete   violation   of
Article   20(3),   the   Board   has   clearly   gone   contrary   to   the
principle   of   presumption   of   innocence   provided   under
section  3(i)  of  the  Act,  2015  read with  rule 10A(3)  Model
Rules and section 3(viii) which mandates that there shall
be no adversarial or accusatory words used in involving a
child.
(xi) The Board failed to take into account the statement of the
respondent   that   CBI   called   him   inside,   beat   him   up   and
asked   him   to   speak   and   erroneously   concluded   that   the
respondent had sufficient mental and physical capacity to
commit the offence.
(xii)   In   the   order   dated   20.12.2017,   the   Board   read   the
confession   of   the   respondent   against   him   but   later   the
53

Board   stated   that   at   this   stage   it   is   not   to   be   seen
“whether   juvenile   in   conflict   with   law   is   guilty   or   not,   he
confessed   or   not,   if   confessed   then   it   was   voluntary   or
under pressure.”
(xiii)   The   circumstances   in   which   the   child   allegedly
committed   the   offence   were   not   put   before   the   Board   nor
was   the   charge­sheet   placed   to   enable   it   to   form   its
opinion.
(xiv)   The   word   “may''   occurring   in   section   15   and   section
101(2)   has to be construed as “shall”. 
(xv) It is to be noted that neither the SIR nor the report of Dr.
Joginder   Kairo   indicate   the   mental   age   of   the   child.   Dr.
Kairo had advised a further assessment but the same was
not done and the Board went ahead with determining the
age of the child.
(xvi)   Section   102   of   the   Act   allows   for   exercise   of   revisional
jurisdiction   on   the   grounds   of   legality   and   propriety.   The
High   Court   correctly   noted   the   perversity   in   reasoning   of
the Board and the Sessions Court, consequently it rightly
set aside the aforementioned orders.  
(xvii)   Respondent   continues   to   remain   in   the   observation
home  and   has   completed   4.5  years   in  custody.   During   his
stay he has interacted with people from all walks of life and
54

was   accused   of   different   heinous   offences.   It   would   not   be
possible   to   assess   his   mental   and   physical   capacity   and
understanding   at   this   stage.   It   would   be   in   the   interest   of
justice   that   he   may   be   treated   as   a   child   and   not   as   an
adult, since he has lost his valuable right under sections 14
and 15 of the Act, 2015.
(xviii) In   support   of   the   above   submissions,   Mr.   Luthra   has
placed reliance on the following judgments: ­
(a) Shilpa   Mittal   v.   State   of   NCT   &   Another,   Crl.
Appeal No. 34 of 2020(paras 1, 30, 31 and 34),
(b) Bachahan   Devi   &   Anr.   v.   Nagar   Nigam,
Gorakhpur, (2008) 12 SCC 372),
(c) Ankush   Shivaji   Gaikwad   v.   State   of
Maharashtra   (2013)   6SCC   770   (paras   52   and
53),
(d) State   of   Bank   of   Travancore   v.   Mohammed
Mohammed   Khan   (1981)   4   SCC   82   (paras   19   to
23)
(e) Som   Prakash   Rekhi   v.   Union   of   India   (1981)   1
SCC 449 (para 63)
(f) Pratap   Singh   v.   State   of   Jharkhand,   (2005)   3
SCC 551 (Paras 7 and 10),
(g) Salil   Bali   v.   Union   of   India   &   Another,   (2013)
7SCC 705 (paras 43 and 63),
55

(h) Province of Bombay v. Kusaldas S. Advani, 1950
SCR 621 (para 16)
(i) State   of   Andhra   Pradesh   v.   A.P.   Wakf   Board,
2022 SCC Online SC159 (para 143),
(j) Superintendent   &   Remembrancer   of   legal
affairs   West Bengal v. Satyen Bhowmik, (1981)
2SCC 109 (paras 20 to 22),
(k) Nitya   Dharamananda   v.   Gopal   Sheelum   Reddy,
(2018) 2SCC 93 (paras 5 to 9),
(l) In   re:   Criminal   Trials   Guidelines   regarding
inadequacies   and   Deficiencies   v.   State   of
Andhra   Pradesh   and   ors.   (2021)   10   SCC   598
(para 11),
(m) Union of India v. IND­Swift Laboratories Limited
(2011) 4SCC 635,
(n)   Nazir   Ahmad   v.   King   Emperor   1936   ILR   372
(pg. 378 to 383)
(o) The King v. Saw Min, 1938 SCC Online Rang 68
(pg. 1,10)
(p) Mahabir   Singh   v.   State   of   Haryana   (2001)   7scc
148 (pg. 19,21,22)
(q)   Opto   Circuit   India   Ltd.   v.   Axis   Bank   (2021)
6SCC 707 (para 14) 
(r)   Aloke   Nath   Dutta   &   Ors.   v.   State   of   Bengal,
(2007) 12 SCC 230 (para 104)
56

(s) Sharat Babu Diguamarti v. NCT of Delhi, (2017)
2 SCC 18 (para 37),
(t)   Philips   India  Ltd.   v.   Labour   Court   (1985)  3SCC
103 (paras 15 to17)
(u)   Municipal   Corporation   of   Delhi   v.   Girdharilal
Sapru, (1981) 2 SCC 758 (para 5)
(v) Ramgopal   Ganpatrai   Ruia   v.   State   of   Bombay,
1958 SCR 618 (para 15)
(w) Emperor   v.   N.G.   Chatterji,   ILR   1946   ALL
553 (paras 5 to 8, 10, 14),
(x) Krishnan v. Krishnaveni (1997) 4SCC  241 (para
8)
(y) Rajeshwar   Singh  v.   Subrata   Roy  Sahara   (2013)
14 SCC 257 (Para 26);
(z)   Ashok Kumar Gupta v State of U.P. 1994 Supp
(1) SCC 145 (Paras 58­60); 
(aa) Union   Carbide   Corp.   v.   Union   of   India
(1991) 4 SCC 584 (Para 83) and; 
(bb) On   molding   of   relief   –   M.   Siddiq   (Dead)
Through   Legal   Representative   (Ram
Janmabhumi   Temple   Case)   v.   Mahant   Suresh
Das   &   Ors.   (2020)   1   SCC   1   (Para   1024,
1026)
57

ANALYSIS :
EFFECT OF AN ORDER OF PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT 
45. The order of preliminary assessment decides whether the
child   in   conflict   with   law,   falling   in   the   age   bracket   of   16­18
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
58

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.
SOCIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT (SIR)
47. Preparation   of   SIR   is   a   statutory   requirement   for   every
child   in   conflict   with   law,   which   is   to   be   prepared   by   the
Probation   Officer   or   any   other   agency   as   may   be   directed   by
the Board.   Its format is also provided in Form 6 to the Model
Rules.   The   object   of   getting   an   SIR   prepared   is   to   obtain   as
much   as   possible   information   about   the   background   of   the
child.   It   has   as   many   as   48   columns   to   be   filled   up   and
thereafter, the Probation Officer is to submit his opinion also.
In   the   present   case,   the   SIR   was   submitted   by   the   Legal
59

Probation   Officer   on   27.11.2017.     The   SIR   is   a   relevant
material to be considered by the Board to take a decision while
passing   any   orders   regarding   bail   or   after   inquiry   or
preliminary assessment.
PSYCHOLOGIST’S REPORT
48. The   report   of   the   psychologist   dated   05.12.2017   only
spells   out   the   IQ   of   the   child   to   be   95   and   also   that   further
assessment,  if  required,  could  be  made.  The  relevant  extracts
from the aforementioned report are reproduced hereunder.
“xxx     xxx xxx
For   assessment   of   his   mental   capacity,
assessment was carried out . 
Impression: IQ ­ 95, average intelligence.  
xxx          xxx   xxx
If required further assessment, he may be sent
to the Institute of Mental Health, University of
Health Sciences, Rohtak.
xxx           xxx   xxx”
49. A perusal of the above report clearly mentions that it was
only   for   the   purpose   of   assessing   the   mental   capacity   of   the
child.     The   report   did   not   mention   anything   about   the   child’s
knowledge   of   the   consequences   of   committing   the   alleged
60

offence, nor did it mention about the circumstances leading to
the   alleged   offence.     No   such   assessment   was   carried   out   as,
apparently the Board only required the opinion on the mental
capacity of the child.
NATURAL JUSTICE/REASONABLE OPPURTUNITY
50. The   Board   and   the   Children’s   Court   have   relied   upon
section 99 of the Act, 2015 to hold that they were not required
to provide the copies of the material on record available in the
form of SIR, the report of the psychologist, and other material.
On   the   other   hand,   the   High   Court   relied   upon   rule   10(5)   of
the   Model   Rules   to   hold   that   the   documents   ought   to   have
been provided to the child or his guardian or his lawyer as the
case   may   be,   and   this   having   not   been   done,   it   was   a   case
where reasonable opportunity had been denied. 
51. Section   99   provides   that   all   reports   relating   to   the   child
and   considered   by   the   Committee   or   the   Board   are   to   be
treated   as   confidential.   The   proviso   to   section   99(1)   gives   the
power   to   the   Committee   or   the   Board   to   communicate   the
substance thereof to another Committee or Board or the child,
his parents or guardian, and may also give such Committee or
Board   or   the   child   or   parent   or   guardian,   an   opportunity   to
61

produce   evidence   as   may   be   relevant   to   the   matter   stated   in
the   report.   Section   99(2)   states   that   the   victim   would   not   be
denied   access   to   the   case   record,   relevant   documents   and
papers. 
52. Maintaining confidentiality has a different purpose but in
no   case   can   it   be   said   that   to   maintain   confidentiality,   the
relevant   material   would   not   be   provided   to   the   child   or   his
guardian or  parents. It would be in complete contravention of
the   settled   principles   of   criminal   jurisprudence.   Concept   of
confidentiality used in section 99 is to prevent the reports from
coming   in   public   domain   or   shared   in   public.   Its   availability
will   be   confined   to   the   parties   to   the   proceedings   and   the
parties   should   also   refrain   from   sharing   it   with   third   parties.
Section   99(2)   begins   with   the   non   obstante   clause   and
proceeds to direct that the victim should not be denied access
to   the   case   report,   orders   and   relevant   papers.   Once   the
legislature’s intention is to provide material to the victim there
could   never   be   an   intention   in   the   name   of   confidentiality   to
deny such access to the records to the child or his parents or
guardians.  The Board and the Children’s Court committed an
62

illegality   in   not   providing   the   documents   as   demanded   by
misinterpreting section 99 of the Act, 2015. 
53. In the present case, the SIR and the report of the expert
psychologist was not provided to the respondent or his parents
or   guardians.   An   application   was   filed   on   behalf   of   the
respondent   for   supplying   such   material   which   was   denied   by
the   Board   by   a   detailed   order   dated   13.12.2017.   The   Board
only extended the liberty to the counsel and the parent or the
guardian   to   look   into   these   reports   for   30   minutes   before   the
hearing commenced. 
54. It   has   been   argued   on   behalf   of   the   respondent   that
firstly, these documents ought to have been provided to them;
and secondly, half an hour was too little a time to go through
the   contents   of   the   voluminous   SIR   (running   into   35   pages)
which  contained   several  statements;  and  thirdly,  they   had   no
opportunity   to   lead   evidence   in   rebuttal   by   way   of   cross­
examination or submitting documents.
55. Another   violation   of   principles   of   natural
justice/opportunity addressed on behalf of the respondent was
on   the   report   of   the   psychologist,   which   only   provided   the   IQ
level   of   the   child   and   nothing   more.   An   application   was   also
63

filed on behalf of the respondent to lead evidence in rebuttal to
the   report   of   the   psychologist   and   to   cross­examine   the
psychologist   as   the   tests   applied   by   the   psychologist   in   his
report were not the relevant tests for  a child aged 16.5 years.
The  tests  applied  were applicable  to  children  up  to  the  age  of
15  years. This  request  made  on   behalf   of  the  respondent  was
also denied by the Board by a detailed order dated 13.12.2017.
56. Another aspect urged on behalf of the respondent was to
the   effect   that   the   report   of   the   psychologist
suggested/recommended   that   the   child   may   be   got   examined
further by the Institute of Mental Health, University of Health
Sciences,   Rohtak.   According   to   the   learned   counsel   for   the
respondent,   the   Board   committed   an   error   by   not   getting
further examination carried out by a superior institution. Once
the psychologist carrying out the tests had given a report and
he  was  himself not  sure of his own  report and had  suggested
for   assessment   by   a   superior   institution,   the   Board   ought   to
have obtained further report. 
57. Yet   another   aspect   which   goes   to   violation   of   a   fair
opportunity was, rejection of the application filed on behalf of
the   respondent   before   the   Board   to   defer   the   proceedings   of
64

preliminary   assessment   till   such   time   the   compliance   of   rule
10(5) of the Model Rules is not made. The material collected by
the   Child   Welfare   Police   Officer   in   the   form   of   statement   of
witnesses   and   other   documents   during   the   course   of
investigation   which   was   to   be   made   within   a   period   of   one
month,   ought   to   have   been   awaited   and   a   copy   of   the   same
should have been provided to the respondent or his parents or
guardian as this would be relevant for preliminary assessment.
58. In   view   of   the   above,   the   argument   of   Mr.   Vikramjit
Banerjee,  learned  counsel  for   CBI,  on  two  counts  needs to  be
rejected.   Firstly,   rule   10(5)   of   the   Model   rules   should   be   read
down as being in conflict with section 99 of the Act, 2015 and
secondly, that no material collected during investigation could
be   provided   to   the   accused   till   such   time   the   police   report
under   section   173(2)   Cr.P.C.   is   filed   and   the   cognizance   is
taken   by   the   Magistrate   under   section   190   and   the   stage   of
section   207/208   Cr.P.C.   is   reached.   The   Act,   2015,   being   a
special   Act,   will   have   an   overriding   effect   over   general
procedure prescribed under the Cr.P.C.. The provisions of the
Cr.P.C. would be applicable so long and so far as they are not
65

in   conflict   with   the   special   provisions   contained   in   the   Act,
2015.  
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
66

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.    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
67

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.  
61. In the present case, despite request of the respondent to
defer the preliminary assessment till such time as the material
under   rule   10(5)   was   provided,   was   rejected   by   the   Board   on
13.12.2017   and   the   Board   proceeded   to   make   an   order   of
preliminary   assessment   within   a   week   thereafter   on
20.12.2017.   The   child   had   been   taken   into   custody   and   was
produced   before   the   Board   for   the   first   time   on   08.11.2017.
The   three   months’   period   for   preliminary   assessment   would
have continued till 07.02.2018.   The Board could have, rather
ought   to   have,   waited   for   the   report   and   material   under   rule
10(5)   of   the   Model   Rules.     Similarly,   once   the   report   of   the
psychologist   suggested   that   if  further   examination   is  required
then   the   respondent   ought   to   have   been   referred   to   a
specialised   institute   in   Rohtak   but   this   suggestion   was   also
not accepted by the Board without cogent reason.  
68

PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT
62. Th e   obligation   of   the   Board   in   making   the   preliminary
assessment on the four counts mentioned in section 15 of the
Act is largely dependent upon the wisdom of the Board without
there being any guidelines as to how the Board would conduct
such   preliminary   assessment.   In   the   absence   of   any   such
framework or guidelines, the Board has to use its discretion in
taking   into   consideration   whatever   material   it   deems   fit   for
assessing the four attributes.  
(a) In the present case, the Board and the Children’s Court,
relying upon the statement given by the child at the time
of   first   appearance   before   the   Board,   the   second
statement given by the child at a later stage, the SIR and
the report of the psychologist indicating an IQ level of 95,
have held that the  respondent had the mental capacity
to commit the offence .  
(b)   Insofar as the physical capacity is concerned, the Board
and   the   Children’s   Court   have   taken   into   consideration
the built of the child and his age to hold that  he had the
69

physical capacity to commit the nature of the alleged
assault. 
(c) The   Board   relied   upon   the   fact   that   the   respondent   was
studying in class 11 th
; he had stated that he is physically
and   mentally   fit   and   not   suffering   from   any   disease;   his
IQ   level   shows   that   he   is   mentally   fit   and   as   such   it
cannot   be   said   that   he   did   not   know   the
consequences of the alleged offence to be committed
by him.    From the statement of the respondent recorded
during his personal assessment, it was indicated that he
was   mature   enough.   All   these   facts   satisfied   the   Board
that   the   respondent   was   having   sufficient   maturity
and   ability   to   understand   the   consequences   of   his
action.  
(d)   The   order   of   the   Board   does   not   anywhere   refer   to   its
assessment   regarding   the   circumstances   in   which   the
respondent   allegedly   committed   the   offence.     However,
what appears is that the Board relied upon the SIR.  
63. In   the   present   case,   the   Board   and   the   Children’s   Court
relied heavily on the psychologist’s report which only reflected
the IQ of the respondent to be of average level bearing a score
70

of   95   to   hold   that   the   respondent   had   the   mental   capacity   to
commit the offence and also ability to know the consequences
of the offence.   The Board and the Children’s Court both have
also   recorded   that   the   recommendation   of   the   psychologist   to
send the respondent for further assessment to the Institute of
Mental  Health, University  of Health  Sciences, Rohtak was not
necessary   as,   according   to   them,   the   IQ   findings   were
sufficient for them to arrive at the preliminary assessment.  
64. Section 15 and rule 10A provide that the Board may take
the   assistance   of   psychologists,   psycho­social   workers,   or
other   experts  who   had  experience  of  working  with   children  in
difficult   circumstances.   According   to   the   learned   counsel   for
the   appellants,   the   word   ‘may’   should   be   read   as   ‘may’   only
i.e.,   the   Board   in   its   discretion   may   or   may   not   take   the
assistance   of   such   experts   whereas   on   behalf   of   the
respondent,   it   has  been   strenuously   contended  that   the  word
‘may’ should be read as ‘shall’ and it should be mandatory for
the   Board   to   take   opinion   or   assistance   from   such   experts
before   passing   an   order   of   preliminary   assessment.     This
aspect is dealt with at a later stage.
71

65. While considering a child as an adult one needs to look at
his/her   physical   maturity,   cognitive   abilities,   social   and
emotional competencies. It must be mentioned here that from
a   neurobiological   perspective,   the   development   of   cognitive,
behavioural   attributes   like   the   ability   to   delay   gratification,
decision   making,   risk   taking,   impulsivity,   judgement,   etc.
continues   until   the   early   20s.   It   is,   therefore,   all   the   more
important   that   such   assessment   is   made   to   distinguish   such
attributes between a child and an adult. 
66. Cognitive   maturation   is   highly   dependent   on   hereditary
factors. Emotional development is less likely to affect cognitive
maturation. However, if emotions are too intense and the child
is   unable   to   regulate   emotions   effectively,   then   intellectual
insight/knowledge may take a back seat.
67. We are in agreement with the reasoning given by the High
Court that further assessment ought to have been carried out
once   the   psychologist   had   recommended   so   and   had   also
suggested   the   name   of   the   institute.     The   Board   and   the
Children’s   Court   apparently   were   of   the   view   that   the   mental
capacity and the ability to understand the consequences of the
offence were one and the same, that is to say that if the child
72

had   the   mental   capacity   to   commit   the   offence,   then   he
automatically   had   the   capacity   to   understand   the
consequences of the offence.   This, in our considered opinion,
is a grave error committed by them.
68. The   language   used   in   section   15   is   “the   ability   to
understand the consequences of the offence”.   The expression
used   is   in   plurality   i.e.,   “consequences”   of   the   offence   and,
therefore,   would   not   just   be   confined   to   the   immediate
consequence   of   the   offence   or   that   the   occurrence   of   the
offence would only have its consequence upon the victim but it
would also take within its ambit the consequences which may
fall upon not only the victim as a result of the assault, but also
on   the   family   of   the   victim,   on   the   child,   his   family,   and   that
too not only immediate consequences but also the far­reaching
consequences   in   future.   Consequences   could   be   in
material/physical   form   but   also   affecting   the   mind   and   the
psychology   of   the   child   for   all   times   to   come.     The
consequences of the offence could be numerous and manifold
which   cannot   be   just   linked   to   a   framework;   and,   for   this
purpose, the  overall  picture  as also  future  consequences  with
73

reference to the facts of the case are required to be consciously
analysed by the Board.
69. Consequences   for   the   victim   could   be   his   death,   or
permanent   physical   disability,   or   an   injury   which   could   be
repaired or recovered; the impact of the offence on the mind of
the victim may be prolonged and continue for his lifetime; the
impact   on   the   family   and   friends   of   the   victim,   both   mental
and   financial;   consequence   on   the   child   going   into
incarceration;   mental   impact   on   the   child,   it   could   be
repentance   or   remorse   for   life,   the   social   stigma   cast   on   the
child   and   his   family   members;   the   consequences   of   litigating
and   so   many   other   things   which   would   be   difficult   to
adumbrate.   
70. A   child   with   average   intelligence/IQ   will   have   the
intellectual knowledge of the consequences of his actions. But
whether or not he is able to control himself or his actions will
depend   on   his   level   of   emotional   competence.   For   example,
risky   driving   may   result   in   an   accident.   But   if   emotional
competence is not high, the urge for thrill seeking may get the
better of his intellectual understanding.
74

71. Children   may   be   geared   towards   more   instant
gratification   and   may   not   be   able   to   deeply   understand   the
long­term   consequences   of   their   actions.   They   are   also   more
likely   to   be   influenced   by   emotion   rather   than   reason.
Research   shows   that   young   people   do   know   risks   to
themselves.   Despite   this   knowledge,   adolescents   engage   in
riskier   behaviour   than   adults   (such   as   drug   and   alcohol   use,
unsafe   sexual   activity,   dangerous   driving   and/or   delinquent
behaviour).   While   they   do   consider   risks   cognitively   (by
weighing   up   the   potential   risks   and   rewards   of   a   particular
act), their decisions / actions may be more heavily influenced
by   social   (e.g.   peer   influences)   and/or   emotional   (e.g.
impulsive)   tendencies.   In   addition,   the   lack   of   experience
coupled   with   the   child’s   limited   ability   to   deeply   understand
the   long­term   consequences   of   their   actions   can   lead   to
impulsive / reckless decision making.
72. Coming   to   the   last   count,   i.e.,   the   assessment   regarding
the   circumstances   in   which   the   offence   is   alleged   to   be
committed   is   again   an   attribute   which   could   have   many
factors   to   be   considered   before   such   an   assessment   could   be
made.     There   could   be   a   number   of   reasons   for   a   person   to
75

commit   a   crime.     It   could   be   enmity,   it   could   be   poverty,   it
could   be   greed,   it   could   be   perversity   in   mind   and   many
others. There could be coercion.  There could be threat to one’s
life   and   property.   There   could   be   allurement   in   terms   of   the
material   and   physical   gains.     Crime   could   be   committed   on
account of stress or depression also. It could be on account of
the   company   that   one   keeps.     One   could   commit   crime   in
order to help his family and friends.  All these and many more
could   be   termed   as   circumstances   leading   to   the   commission
of crime.
73. The   preliminary   assessment   has   been   a   question   of
debates,   analysis   and   research.   The   National   Law   University,
Orissa,   in   collaboration   with   UNICEF,   made   a   detailed   study
on   the   practice   of   preliminary   assessment   under   the   Act,
2015.   To   the   said   report   is   annexed   as   Annexure   4,   the
Guidance   Notes   on   Preliminary   Assessment   Reports   for
Children   in   Conflict   in   Law   developed   by   the   Department   of
Child   and   Adolescent   Psychiatry,   NIMHANS 9
,   Bengaluru.   It
would   be   worthwhile   to   mention   here   that   NIMHANS,
Bengaluru   is   one   of   the   premier   institutions   involved   in   the
9  National Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences.
76

research   and   study   of   psychology,   and   is   a   world­renowned
centre   for   mental   health,   neurosciences   and   allied   fields.   The
contents   of   the   Guidance   Notes   referred   to   above   are
reproduced below­ 
“ Guidance Notes on 
Preliminary Assessment Report for Children in Conflict
with Law 
Department of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, NIMHANS,
Bengaluru
The preliminary assessment uses information from the detailed
psychosocial  and  mental  health  assessment  (that  is   done  first)
and presents that information as outlined below.
A. Mental & Physical Capacity to Commit Alleged Offence
The   child’s   ability   to   make   social   decisions   and   judgments
are compromised due to:
(i) Life   skills   deficits   (emotional   dysregulation/   difficulty
coping with peer pressure/ assertiveness & negotiation
skills   /problem­solving/   conflict­resolution/   decision­
making). 
(ii) Neglect   /   poor   supervision   by   family/poor   family   role
models 
(iii) Experiences of abuse and trauma 
(iv) Substance abuse problems 
(v) Intellectual disability 
(vi) Mental health disorder/ developmental disability
(vii) Treatment/ interventions provided so far
 
Guidance Notes
77

For   this   section,   the   professional   filling   out   the
preliminary   assessment   form   is   simply   required   to   mark
off against each item (a tick mark to indicate ‘yes’ and an
X   mark   to   indicate   ‘no’)   whether   or   not   the   child   is
compromised   in   this   particular   area.   The   information   is
drawn from relevant sections of the detailed psychosocial
and   mental   health   proforma,   which   contain   information
on:   how   a   child’s   abilities   to   make   appropriate   social
decisions   and   judgements   (which   translate   into   actions
and   behaviours)   have   been   affected   by   the   child’s   life
circumstances   and   mental   health   or   developmental
problems. 
For   item   (i)   on   life   skills   deficits,   refer   to   Section   6,   ‘Life
Skills   Deficits   and   Other   Observations   of   the   Child’   and
sub­section 6.1. on ‘Life Skills Deficits’. 
For item (ii), refer to Section 2, sub­section 2.1. on ‘Family
Issues   Identified’.   For   item   (iii)   on   experiences   of   abuse
and   trauma,   refer   to   Section   3,   ‘Trauma   Experiences:
Physical, Sexual and Emotional Abuse Experiences’. 
For   items   (iv)   and   (vi)   on   substance   abuse   problems   and
mental   health   disorders/   developmental   disability,   refer
to Section 5, ‘Mental Health Concerns’. 
For   item   (v)   on   intellectual   disability,   you   may   rely   on
your   judgement   based   on  your   interaction   with   the   child
during   the   entire   process   of   administering   the
psychosocial   and   mental   health   proforma—if   the   child
was unable to respond to most questions or responded 2
in   an   age­appropriate   manner   (like   a   younger   child
would, demonstrating little understanding of many things
asked   or   discussed),   then   you   may   suspect   that   he/she
has   intellectual   disability.   (Following   this,   it   would   be
useful and  necessary to confirm this  through relevant  IQ
testing   conducted   by   psychologists   located   in   mental
health facilities). 
78

For   item   (vii),   you   may   have   enquired   from   the   child,
during   the   assessment,   about   whether   he/she   has
received any professional assistance or treatment for any
mental   health   issues/   family   problems   or   life   skills
deficits   that   he/she   has.   (Generally,   children   in   the
Observation   Home   have   never   received   any   treatment   or
interventions for their problems). 
In   actual   fact,   everyone,   except   someone   with   serious
physical   disability   (the   type   that   severely   impacts
locomotor   skills)   or   with   intellectual   disability,   has   the
mental   and   physical   capacity   to   commit   offence.   So,   to
ask   whether   a   given   child   has   the   mental   and   physical
capacity to commit offence, in simplistic terms, is likely to
elicit   the   answer   ‘yes’   in   most   cases.   And   just   because
someone has the physical and mental capacity to commit
an   offence,   does   not   mean   that   they   will   or   that   they
have.   Therefore,   a   dichotomous   response   as   elicited   by
this question posed by the JJ Act is of little use in making
decisions regarding child who has come into conflict with
the law. Thus, in response to the problems resulting from
a simplistic dichotomous response to the physical­mental
capacity   question,   we   have   adopted   a   more   detailed,
descriptive and nuanced interpretation. 
As   per   the   preliminary   assessment   report   we   have
developed,   mental   and   physical   capacity   to   commit
offence   is   the   ability   of   a   child   to   make   social   decisions
and judgments, based on certain limitations that the child
may   have.   In   other   words,   a   child’s   abilities   to   make
social   decisions   and   judgments   are   compromised   due   to
life   skills   deficits,   neglect   /   poor   supervision   by
family/poor family role models, experiences of abuse and
trauma,   substance   abuse   problems,   intellectual
disability, and/or mental health disorder/ developmental
disability.   Such   issues   (if   untreated)   adversely   impact
children’s   world   view,   and   their   interactions   with   their
79

physical and social environment, thereby placing them at
risk of engaging in antisocial activities.
B. Circumstances of Alleged Offence 
(i)   Family   history   and   relationships   (child’s   living
arrangements,   parental   relationships,   child’s   emotional
relationship & attachment to parents, illness & alcoholism in
the family, domestic violence and marital discord if any). 
(ii)   School   and   education   (child’s   school   attendance,   Last
grade   attended,   reasons   for   child   not   attending   school­
whether   it   is   due   to   financial   issues   or   lack   of   motivation,
school refusal, corporal punishment). 
(iii)   Work   experience/   Child   labour   (why   the   child   had   to
work/   how   child   found   the   place   of   work,   where   he   was
working   /   hours   of   work   and   amount   of   remuneration
received,   was   there   any   physical/emotional   abuse   by   the
employer   and   also   regarding   negative   influence   the   child
may have encountered in the workplace regarding substance
abuse etc). 
(iv)   Peer   relationships   (adverse   peer   influence   in   the   context
of   substance   use/   rule­breaking/inappropriate   sexual
behaviour/school attendance) 
(iv) Experiences   of   trauma   and   abuse   (physical,   sexual   &
emotional   Abuse   experiences)   3   (vi)   Mental   health   disorders
and developmental disabilities: (Mental health disorders and
developmental disabilities that the child may have). 
Guidance Notes  
All   of   the   above   information   for   this   section   is   to   be
documented as it is in the detailed psychosocial and mental
health   assessment,   drawing   on   relevant   sections   from   the
detailed   assessment,   so   as   to   present   the   factors   and
80

circumstances   that   made   the   child   vulnerable   to   committing
offence.
Information for the  first  four heads  needs  to  be  drawn from
Section   2,   Social   History,   of   the   psychosocial   and   mental
health   proforma—which   contains   details   on   family,   school,
institution   and   peer   issues;   Information   for   the   fifth   item   on
trauma,   needs   to   be   drawn   from   Section   3,   Trauma
Experiences:   Physical,   Sexual,   and   Emotional   Abuse
Experiences’ of the psychosocial assessment form; 
For   the   sixth   item   on   Mental   Health   Disorders,   Section   5,
‘Mental   Health   Concerns’   (including   substance   abuse)   from
the psychosocial assessment form, would need to be used. 
It   is   important   to   recognize   that   ‘Circumstances   of   the
Offence’   does   NOT   refer   to   proximal   factors   i.e.   what
happened right before the offence incident took place. This is
because   proximal   factors   have   a  history   which   is   important
to   recognize—there   is   a   whole   set   of   factors   and   life   events
that   led   up   to   the   decisions   and   actions   to   just   before   the
offence   as   well   as   the   offence   itself.   Therefore,
‘circumstances’   are   interpreted   as   life   circumstances   and   a
longitudinal   approach   is   taken   to   understanding
vulnerabilities and pathways to offences. This entails events
and circumstances starting from the child’s birth (or starting
with   the   mother’s   pregnancy   experiences)   to   the   current
date. This is the universal approach to history­taking in child
and   adolescent   mental   health,   to   be   able   to   understand
children’s   emotions   and   behaviours   based   on   their   contexts
and experiences, as they have played out over several years
(and   so   it   is   not   actually   specific   to   children   in   conflict   with
the law). 
C.   Child’s   Knowledge   of   Consequences   of   Committing
the Alleged Offence
  (A   brief   about   the   child’s   understanding   of   social/
interpersonal   and   legal   consequences   of   committing   offence
81

along with the child’s insights regarding committing such an
offence).
Guidance Notes 
This is based on the ‘Potential for Transformation’ section in
the detailed psychosocial and mental health assessment, as
well   as   the   first   level   interventions   provided   immediately
after.   How   the   child   responded   during   the   assessment   i.e.
extent   of   his/her   insight   and   motivation,   must   be
documented here. 
Social   and   interpersonal   consequences   refer   to   the   child’s
sense of empathy and understanding of how his/her actions
would   (negatively)   impact   his/her   relationship   with   family,
friends   and   others;   legal   consequences   refer   to   the   child’s
understanding   of   his/her   actions   as   being   a   boundary
violation/   breaking   of   rules   with   serious   negative
consequences for himself/herself, including punishment and
coming into conflict with the law. 
D. Other Observations & Issues 
Guidance Notes
Any   other   observation   made   during   the   assessment
regarding   the   child’s   social   temperament/   child’s   behaviour
in   the   observation   home/   level   of   motivation   for   change/   if
any   positive   behaviour   noted   is   also   provided.   This   may   be
drawn from Section 6 of the psychosocial and mental health
proforma,   on   ‘Life   Skills   Deficits   and   Other   Observations   of
the Child’, sub­section 6.2 ‘Other Observations of the Child’.
These   refer   not   just   to   negative   observations   but   also   to
positive   ones   you   might   have   made   during   the   assessment.
Observations   may   thus   include   the   child’s   demeanour,   or
any   views   or   ideologies   that   the   child   may   have   expressed
regarding   problem   behaviours   such   as   violence   or   abuse—
which may better help understand who he/she is (and help
82

the   magistrate   view   the   offence   behaviour   from   varied
perspectives).   They   may   also   include   any   odd   behaviours
that you observe which might help substantiate the evidence
on mental health disorders and developmental disabilities—
for   instance,   if   the   child’s   responses   appear   socially   and
cognitively   inappropriate   to   his   age,   you   may   note   possible
intellectual   disability;   or   if   a   child   appears   disoriented   in
terms   of   place   and   time   or   has   marks   of   self­harm   on   his
body, then you might note mental health issues.
E. Recommendations
Guidance Notes
Finally,   the   report   makes   recommendations   for   treatment
and   rehabilitation   interventions   for   the   child,   based   on   the
interests   and   desires   of   the   child.   These   could   pertain   to
placement,   living   arrangements,   education   and   schooling,
counselling   for   parents,   referral   to   a   tertiary   facility   for
further  mental   health  and   psychosocial   care   and   treatment.
This sub­section is critical as it provides the JJB magistrate
with   clear   direction   on   what   assistance   the   child   requires,
thus creating an imperative for the board to consider options
and   respond   in   ways   that   are   supportive   and   proactive
(versus   making   decisions   of   transfer   to   the   adult   justice
system). 
JJB   magistrates   may   be   requested   to   refer   the   child   to   a
psychiatric   facility   for   treatment,   so   that   other   issues
pertaining to family and school can also be taken care of by
the   mental   health   system,   which   is   then   obligated   to   report
to   the   JJB   on   the   child’s   progress.   In   many   instances,   JJB
magistrates have issued a conditional bail to ensure that the
child  and  family  follow   through   with  mental   health  services
as   required   i.e.   bail   is   given   to   the   child   on   condition   that
he/she   presents   at   the   mental   health   facility   and   complies
with   treatment   (if   the   child   refuses   to   do   so,   the   magistrate
can   revoke   the   bail).   Thus,   there   are   adequate   provisions
83

under the JJ Act, which if effectively invoked, can be used to
protect CICL from transfer to adult systems, and to facilitate
their rehabilitation instead.
PROVISO TO SECTION 15(1) DIRECTORY OR MANDATORY:
74. The world acknowledges that children in conflict with law
should   be   treated   differently   than   adults   in   conflict   with   law.
The   reason   is   that   the   mind   of   the   child   has   not   attained
maturity  and it is still developing. Therefore, the  child should
be   tested   on   different   parameters   and   should   be   given   an
opportunity   of   being   brought   into   the   main   stream   if,   during
his   juvenility,   has   acted   in   conflict   with   law.     To   understand
psychology   of   the   child,   huge   rounds   of   studies   have   been
made   not   only   recently   but   from   age   old   times   and   child
psychology is a subject which is being studied world over and
there are institutes specifically  dealing   with  the developments
and   research   on   the   said   subject.     The   enactments   dealing
with children are enacted world over.  
75. It   is   to   be   noted   that   child   psychology   is   a   specialised
branch of development psychology, its genesis is based on the
premise   that   children   and   adults   have   a   different   thought
process.   The   individualised   assessment   of   adolescent   mental
capacity   and   ability   to   understand   the   consequences   of   the
84

offence   is   one   of   the   most   crucial   determinants   of   the
preliminary   assessment   mandated   by   section   15   of   the   Act,
2015.     The   report   of   the   preliminary   assessment   decides   the
germane   question   of   transferring   the   case   of   a   child   between
16 to 18 years of age to the Children’s Court.   This evaluation
of   ‘mental   capacity   and   ability   to   understand   the
consequences’ of the child in conflict with law can, in no way,
be relegated to the status of a perfunctory and a routine task.
The process of taking a decision on which the fate of the child
in   conflict   with   law   precariously   rests,   should   not   be   taken
without conducting a meticulous psychological evaluation.
76. As already noticed, the Board consists of three members,
one   is   a   Judicial   Officer   First   Class   and   two   social   workers,
one being a woman.  The social worker appointed as a member
could be having a degree in child psychology or psychiatry but
it is not necessary. As such, the constitution of the Board may
not necessarily be having an expert child psychologist. It is for
all   the   above   reasons   that   it   has   been   provided   not   only   in
sections   15   and   101(2)   but   also   under   the   Model   Rules   that
assistance   may   be   taken   from   an   expert   psychologist.   Having
regard to the framework of the Act, 2015 and the Model Rules
85

and the purpose of preliminary assessment in terms of Section
15 as  also looking  to  the  varied  composition  of the Board, we
are   of   the   view   that   where   the   Board   is   not   comprising   of   a
practicing   professional   with   a   degree   in   child   psychology   or
child psychiatry, the expression “may” in the proviso to section
15(1)   would   operate   in   mandatory   form   and   the   Board   would
be   obliged   to   take   assistance   of   experienced   psychologists   or
psycho­social   workers   or   other   experts.   However,   in   case   the
Board comprises of at least one such member, who has been a
practicing   professional   with   a   degree   in   child   psychology   or
child psychiatry, the Board may  take such  assistance as may
be considered proper by it; and in case the Board chooses not
to   take   such   assistance,   it   would   be   required   of   the   Board   to
state specific reasons therefor.
77. It is a well settled principle of interpretation that the word
‘may’   when   used   in   a   legislation   by   itself   does   not   connote   a
directory   meaning.   If   in   a   particular   case,   in   the   interests   of
equity and justice it appears to the court that the intent of the
legislature   is   to   convey   a   statutory   duty,   then   the   use   of   the
word   “may”   will   not   prevent   the   Court   from   giving   it   a
86

mandatory   colour.   This   Court   in   Bachahan   Devi   v.   Nagar
Nigam, Gorakhpur 10
,  held as under:
“ 18.   It is well settled that the use of the word “may” in
a   statutory   provision   would   not   by   itself   show   that   the
provision   is   directory   in   nature.   In   some   cases,   the
legislature may use the word “may” as a matter of pure
conventional courtesy and yet intend a mandatory force.
In   order,   therefore,   to   interpret   the   legal   import   of   the
word   “may”,   the   court   has   to   consider   various   factors,
namely,   the   object   and   the   scheme   of   the   Act,   the
context   and   the   background   against   which   the   words
have   been   used,   the   purpose   and   the   advantages
sought   to   be  achieved   by   the  use   of   this   word,   and   the
like. It is equally well settled that where the word “may”
involves   a   discretion   coupled   with   an   obligation   or
where   it   confers   a   positive   benefit   to   a   general  class   of
subjects   in   a  utility   Act,   or   where   the   court   advances   a
remedy   and   suppresses   the   mischief,   or   where   giving
the   words   directory   significance   would   defeat   the   very
object  of  the  Act,   the  word   “may”  should  be  interpreted
to   convey   a   mandatory   force.   As   a   general   rule,   the
word   “may”   is   permissive   and   operative   to   confer
discretion   and   especially   so,   where   it   is   used   in
juxtaposition   to   the   word   “shall”,   which   ordinarily   is
imperative   as   it   imposes   a   duty.   Cases,   however,   are
not wanting where the words “may”, “shall” and “must”
are   used   interchangeably.   In   order   to   find   out   whether
these   words   are   being   used   in   a   directory   or   in   a
mandatory sense, the intent of the legislature should be
looked into along with the pertinent circumstances .”
78. Similarly,   this   Court   in   Dhampur   Sugar   Mills   Ltd.   v.
State of U.P. 11
,  held:
10   (2008) 12 SCC 372  
11   (2007) 8 SCC 338  
87

“36 .   ….In   our   judgment,   mere   use   of   word   “may”   or
“shall”   is   not   conclusive.   The   question   whether   a
particular   provision   of   a   statute   is   directory   or
mandatory   cannot   be   resolved   by   laying   down   any
general   rule   of   universal   application.   Such   controversy
has   to   be   decided   by   ascertaining   the   intention   of   the
legislature and not by looking at the language in which
the   provision   is   clothed.   And   for   finding   out   the
legislative intent, the court must examine the scheme of
the   Act,   purpose   and   object   underlying   the   provision,
consequences   likely   to   ensue   or   inconvenience   likely   to
result  if   the  provision  is  read  one  way  or  the  other  and
many more considerations relevant to the issue .”
 
79. Therefore, looking to the purpose of the Act, 2015 and its
legislative   intent,   particularly   to   ensure   the   protection   of   best
interest   of   the   child,   the   expression   “may”   in   the   proviso   to
Section 15(1) thereof and the requirement of taking assistance
of experienced psychologists or psycho­social workers or other
experts   would   operate   as   mandatory   unless   the   Board   itself
comprises   of   at   least   one   member   who   is   a   practicing
professional   with   a   degree   in   child   psychology   or   child
psychiatry.   Moreover,   in   case   the   Board,   in   view   of   its   own
composition   with   at   least   one   member,   who   is   a   practicing
professional   with   a   degree   in   child   psychology   or   child
psychiatry,   chooses   not   to   take   such   assistance,   it   would
record specific reasons therefor.
88

80. Before we close, it would be pertinent to mention that the
case laws relied upon by the learned counsel for the parties do
not require deliberation in view of the findings recorded by us
on various issues.
CONCLUSION
81. We are conscious of the fact that the power  to make the
preliminary   assessment   is   vested   in   the   Board   and   also   the
Children’s   Court   under   sections   15   and   19   respectively.   The
Children’s  Court,  on   its   own,   upon   a  matter   being   referred  to
under section 18(3), would still examine whether the child is to
be   tried   as   an   adult   or   not,   and   if   it   would   come   to   the
conclusion that the child was not to be tried as an adult then
it   would   itself   conduct   an   inquiry   as   a   Board   and   pass
appropriate orders under section 18.  Thus, the power to carry
out   the   preliminary   assessment   rests   with   the   Board   and   the
Children’s Court. This Court cannot delve upon the exercise of
preliminary   assessment.   This   Court   will   only   examine   as   to
whether   the   preliminary   assessment   has   been   carried   out   as
required   under   law   or   not.   Even   the   High   Court,   exercising
revisionary   power   under   section   102,   would   test   the   decision
of the Board or the Children’s Court with respect to its legality
89

or   propriety   only.   In   the   present   case,   the   High   Court   has,
after   considering   limited   material   on   record,   arrived   at   a
conclusion   that   the   matter   required   reconsideration   and   for
which,   it   has   remanded   the   matter   to   the   Board   with   further
directions   to   take   additional   evidence   and   also   to   afford
adequate   opportunity   to   the   child   before   taking   a   fresh
decision.
82. In  arriving  at  the   conclusion,   the  High   Court  firstly  held
that   there   was   denial   of   adequate   opportunity   to   the
respondent.     The   list   of   documents,   copies   of   the   documents,
copies   of   the   statement,   the   SIR   not   being   provided   to   the
respondent,   was   in   clear   violation   of   rule   10(5)   of   the   Model
Rules.
83. Despite   specific   request   for   cross­examining   the   experts
who   had   given   the   report,   the   same   was   not   provided   to   the
respondent.     The   tests   conducted   by   the   expert   psychologists
were  not  applicable  or   could  not  have  been  applied  to  a  child
above the age of 15 years.   It could have been applied only for
children below the age of up to 15 years in one test and up to
11.5   years   in   the   other   test.   The   psychologist   had   suggested
90

for   further   assessment   by   a   superior   facility,   which   was   not
accepted by the Board without cogent reason.  
84. The   mental   age   as   per   the   applicable   formula   based   on
the   IQ   of   the   child   would   be   less   than   16   years.     The   Board,
provided   only   30   minutes   time   to   the   child,   his   lawyer,   his
father  and also to the counsel for  CBI  to peruse the 35 pages
of   the   report,   which   was   too   little   to   peruse   and   comprehend
and   give   any   evidence   in   rebuttal.     The   CBI   counsel   had
admitted   that   it   did   not   have   officers   or   the   required
infrastructure   to   conduct   the   investigation   under   the   Act,
2015.   For all the above reasons, the High Court remitted the
matter   to   the   Board   after   setting   aside   both   the   orders   of   the
Board and the Children’s Court to consider afresh and assess
the   intelligence,   maturity,   physical   fitness   and   as   to   how   the
child   in   conflict   with   law   was   in   a   position   to   know   the
consequences   of   the   offence.     The   exercise   was   to   be
undertaken   within   a   period   of   six   weeks.     The   High   Court
further   directed   that   while   conducting   the   preliminary
assessment   afresh,   opinion   of   the   psychologist   of   the
Government Hospital (Institute of Mental Health, University of
Health   Sciences,   Rohtak)   be   obtained.     This   Court   may   not
91

agree with the reasoning given by the High Court on all counts
and   also   the   direction   given   for   conducting   further   tests.
However,   we   have   no   hesitation   in   agreeing   with   the   ultimate
result   of   the   High   Court   in   remanding   the   matter   for   a   fresh
consideration   after   rectifying   the   errors   on   lack   of   adequate
opportunity.
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 3½	 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
92

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. 
86. In view of the above, both the appeals are dismissed.
87. Before   concluding,   we   may   indicate   that   the   task   of
preliminary assessment under section 15 of the Act, 2015 is a
delicate   task   with   requirement   of   expertise   and   has   its   own
implications   as   regards   trial   of   the   case.   In   this   view   of   the
matter,   it   appears   expedient   that   appropriate   and   specific
guidelines   in   this   regard   are   put   in   place.   Without   much
elaboration,   we   leave   it   open   for   the   Central   Government   and
the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights and the
State   Commission   for   Protection   of   Child   Rights   to   consider
issuing   guidelines   or   directions   in   this   regard   which   may
assist   and   facilitate   the   Board   in   making   the   preliminary
assessment under section 15 of the Act, 2015. 
88. We also make it clear that any observations made in our
order  which  may  be  touching   the  merits  of  the  case was  only
93

for the purpose of deciding these appeals and the same would
in   no   way   influence   the   Board   or   the   Children’s   Court   or   the
High   Court.   They   may   proceed   to   decide   the   matters
objectively on merits in accordance with law.
………..........................J.
[ DINESH MAHESHWARI]
………….........................J.
[VIKRAM NATH]
NEW DELHI
JULY  13, 2022. 
94