This criminal revision under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 has been preferred by the applicant being aggrieved by order dated 10/06/2022(Annexure-A-1) passed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Waidhan, District Singrauli, in S.C.No.01/2022 whereby applicant's appeal has been dismissed affirming the order dated 04/01/2022 passed by Principal Magistrate Juvenile Justice Board, Singrauli, District Singrauli.

2. The order has been assailed by the applicant saying that not only the Board but the Court below has also not considered the facts in proper manner and not appreciated the respective provision i.e Rule 13(8) of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Model Rules, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as 'Model Rules 2016').

3 . As per the facts of the case, on 24/01/2021 the prosecutrix lodged a report at Police Station Vindhyanagar alleging that she studied in class-VII in V.D.Paul School, Vindhyanagar and there is an internet shop of her father situate at Navjeevan Vihar Indra Chowk. She used to go to LIG colony for taking tuition and in the month of December 2019 she came into contact with one Deepak Baghel. It is alleged that Deepak Baghel and his other friends who are also co-accused started teasing her by sending and showing obscene and pornography videos and further started blackmailing creating pressure upon her. On 19th December when she was going to her father'Â™s shop after taking tuition at around 6:30 P.M in the evening one of the co-accused took her to marriage hall located at MIG colony where other accused persons were also present and they Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHMA KUSHWAHA Signing time: 3/2/2023 11:52:00 AM 3 by giving threat committed rape with her and also harassed physically entering their fingers in her private part and this was being repeated very often. On that, police registered a Crime No.73/2021 for the offence under Sections 376 , 376(2)(n) , 376(D)(A) , 354 of IPC and Section 5 , 6 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 under POCSO Act and under Section 3 (2)(v) , 3(1)(w)(i) of SC/ST Act. Matter was investigated and accused persons were arrested by the police. Charge-sheet was filed against Shiv Shankar Sharma before JMFC, Singrauli and other accused including applicant before the Juvenile Justice Board as they were found juvenile. The bail application submitted by the applicant under Section 12 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act 2015') has been rejected by the Juvenile Justice Board vide order dated 04/01/2022 and appeal preferred under Section 101 of 'Act, 2015' has also been rejected.

4. The prosecutrix has informed to the police that prior to 15 days of lodging FIR, accused persons have given threat about making the video viral and also abused her for which she tried to commit suicide on 23/01/2021 but her parents have restrained and make her understand, therefore, on 24/01/2021 she lodged report.

5. An application has been moved before the Juvenile Justice Board by the respondent under the provision of sub Rule 8 of Rule 13 of 'Model Rules, 2016' treating Shubham, Siddharth and Dipak to be an adult and their case be tried as such. The Board considered the same and taken note of the date of birth of juvenile no.1 namely Shubham Tiwari which is 19/04/2004, juvenile no.2 Siddharth Dubey is 14/03/2004 and juvenile no.3 Deepak Baghel is 25/06/2003. As per the date of incident i.e 09/01/2021, Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHMA KUSHWAHA Signing time: 3/2/2023 11:52:00 AM 4 juvenile no.1 was aged about 16 years 8 months and 21 days. Juvenile no.2 was 16 years 9 months and 26 days and juvenile no.3 was 17 years 6 months and 15 days. Meaning thereby, at the time of committing crime they were within the age of 16 to 18 years. The Board has considered the manner in which crime has been committed and also considered the other circumstances then opined that juvenile no.1, 2 and 3 were not only mentally but also competent physically and they are fit to understand the consequence of committing crime and as such opined that they should be tried like an adult. The order was further assailed before the Sessions Court by filing an appeal under Section 101 of 'Act 2015' and vide order dated 10/06/2022 Sessions Court while testing the validity of the order of Juvenile Board observed that as per the facts of the case, it is clear that the offence was not committed on one day but it was continued from 16/12/2019 till 09/01/2021.

6. The applicant is assailing the order only on the ground that any such enquiry required to be considered under Section 14 of the 'Act 2015' have to be completed within a period of four months from the date of first production of the child before the Board. He submits that as per sub Section 2 of Section 14 the period of four months can be extended for a maximum period of two months and according to him, the juvenile was produced before the Board on 15/01/2021 and enquiry to consider the juvenile as an adult was not initiated and concluded within the prescribed period of limitation. For ready reference it is apt to mention Section 14(2) of 'Act 2015' Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHMA KUSHWAHA Signing time: 3/2/2023 11:52:00 AM 5 14(2) The inquiry under this section shall be completed within a period of four months from the date of first production of the child before the Board, unless the period is extended, for a maximum period of two more months by the Board, having regard to the circumstances of the case and after recording the reasons in writing for such extension.

7. It is submitted by counsel for the applicant that from the order of Juvenile Board, it is clear that the enquiry was not initiated and concluded within a prescribed period of limitation and final order has been passed on 04/01/2022 after almost one year from the date of production of juvenile before the Board and, therefore, the said enquiry is illegal. He submits that this ground was raised before the Sessions Court in an appeal preferred but no answer to that ground has been given by the Court below and as such order of Board and the order of Sessions Court are liable to be set- aside.

8. In contrast, counsel for State has opposed the submissions made by counsel for the applicant and submitted that the assessment was made b y the Board not only on the basis of age of juvenile at the time of committing crime but also on the fact that crime was continued from 2019 till 2021. The juvenile on the last date of committing crime has attained the age under which trial can be conducted treating them to be an adult and order has rightly been passed by the Board and approved by the Sessions Judge that juvenile nos.1 to 3 should be tried treating them an adult and as such matter be transferred to the competent court of jurisdiction. He has placed reliance upon a judgment of the Supreme Court passed in case of Vikas Choudhary Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) & another reported in 2010 (8) SCC 508, in which the Supreme Court has considered this aspect Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHMA KUSHWAHA Signing time: 3/2/2023 11:52:00 AM 6 that the age of juvenile should not be determined considering the date of incident. He submits that since trial was continued, therefore, the age can be considered taking note of the last date of committing crime and as per the facts of the case it has rightly been observed that juvenile Nos.1, 2 and 3 have attained the age under which trial can be conducted treating them to be an adult, therefore, the order is valid one and does not call for any interference.

9. I have heard the submissions made by counsel for both the parties and perused the record.

10. Counsel for the applicant has confined his submission to the extent that as per the provision of Section 14(2) of 'Act 2015' the maximum period of enquiry provided from the date of production of child before the Board at the first instance is four months and that period can be further extended for a maximum period of two months, but in the present case enquiry has not been concluded within the said period. As per the facts of the case, child was produced before the Board first time on 25/01/2021 and order was passed by the Board on 04/01/2022 and as such it is clear that the said enquiry was concluded beyond the maximum limitation for concluding the enquiry i.e six months, therefore, the same be declared illegal. Except this, counsel has not attacked on any of the fact mentioned in the impugned order.

11. However, I am not convinced with the submissions made by counsel for the applicant because the said order was further assailed before the Court of Sessions by filing an appeal under Section 101 of 'Act 2015' , wherein the Court has also approved the order of Board Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHMA KUSHWAHA Signing time: 3/2/2023 11:52:00 AM 7 considering the fact that initial incident and crime was committed on 16/12/2019 and that was continued up to 09/01/2021 and finally the Sessions Court considered that the date of birth of juvenile no.1 is 14/03/2004 and on the date of last incident he was aged about 16 years 9 months and 26 days. So far as juvenile no.2 is concerned his date of birth is 14/03/2004 and on the date of incident he was also more than 16 years likewise juvenile no.3 whose date of birth was recorded as 25/06/2003 on the last date of incident, he was also more than 17 years of age, as such all three juvenile are between 16-18 years. The Sessions Court has also observed that alleged crime comes within the definition of heinous crime and it was not a petty offence. Section 15 of 'Act 2015' deals with the assessment of juvenile involved into heinous offences. For ready reference Section 15 of the 'Act 2015' is reproduced hereunder:-

Considering the said aspect and the period of enquiry, I am of the opinion that the period specified for conclusion of enquiry under Section 14 of Act 2015 is only directive but not mandatory. The Delhi High Court has considered this aspect in Criminal Revision P. 24/2017 (X Minor( Through His Elder Brother Vs. State ). Paragraph 31 is relevant and the same is reproduced as under:-

and that this number has in fact increased by 44% within just six months between 31.12.2020 and 30.06.2021.

11. Though by way of consolation, it is also submitted that most c hildre n who are implicated in petty offences are not apprehended by the police, or if apprehended, are almost immediately handed-over to the care and custody of the parents or guardians; and that therefore, the mere pendency of an inquiry under section 14 does not operate to the child's detriment. We are, however, of the view that even the mere pendency of an inquiry against a child is certainly stigmatic and impacts the dignity of the child; and therefore, this situation must not be allowed to continue, especially when it is plainly in the teeth of the provisions of section 14(4) .

12. To put it quite simply, we find the aforesaid position completely unacceptable.

13. We think that the large pendency is a result of a flawed understanding of the statutory dispensation. We say so for the following reasons :

14. Clearly, statutory provisions did not contemplate an extraordinary and unprecedented situation like the recent pandemic; and therefore, in ordinary times, it was expected that juveniles would be produced before the JJBs within the stipulated time. However, even in the context of the pandemic, in a recent judgme nt dated 28.07.2020 rendered in W.P.(C) No. 4361/2020by a Division Bench of this court headed by Hon'Â™ble the Chief Justice in Bachpan Bachao Andolan vs GNCTD &Ors. , the court has issued directions addressing the unprecedented situation, inter-alia directing as follows:

We direct that this process should be continued, and the requirement of taking the child out of the home/ Child Care Institution should be avoided as far as possible.whereby, as per the directions issued, children in conflict with law ought to have been produced before the JJBs via video- conferencing, which would have answered the requirement of the date of first production of the child under section 14(2) . This however, we are informed, has not been done in most cases.

15. All else apart, we are clear however, that on a plain reading o f section 14(4) , if an inquiry relates to a Ã‚Â™; and the allegation is that the child has committed a petty offence; and a period of 04 months has elapsed from the date of the child'Â™s first production before a JJB; but the inquiry remains inconclusive, by operation of law, that is to say automatically, such inquiry proceedings are to stand terminatedÃ‚Â™. In our view, beyond the stipulated period, the very jurisdiction of a JJB to continue with such an inconclusive inquiry, ceases, without any further requirement. It goes without saying that this period of 04 months can be extended by a maximum of 02 more months but only after recording reasons in writing for such extension.

16. Though, as per the clear mandate of the Division Bench of this court in Bachpan Bachao Andolan (supra), children ought to have been produced before the JJBs via video-conferencing during the pandemic, without delving further into that lapse, and with a view to promptly correcting the prevailing anomalous situation, we are persuaded to pass the following directions, in line with section 14(4) and in the best interests of affected Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHMA KUSHWAHA Signing time: 3/2/2023 11:52:00 AM 12 juveniles, for immediate and peremptory compliance :

17. We make it clear that the termination of inquiries as perour directions under section 14 would not in any manner deter the preparation and implementation of requisite rehabilitation and social reintegration plans as contemplated inter-alia in chapters V, VI and VII of the JJ Act, which would be proceeded in accordance with law.

15.The view expressed by the Division Bench and discussing the limitation as prescribed under Section 14(2) of 'Act, 2015' for concluding the enquiry especially when offences are petty in nature and the pending enquiry was considered to be terminated if not concluded within the prescribed period but here situation is different because offences are of henious in nature and enquiry has already been concluded; report has been submitted by the Board which has also been approved by the Session Judge. As per the view taken by the Division Bench, it is also clear that in a matter of petty offences enquiry has to be completed within a maximum period of six months as prescribed under Section 14(2) of the 'Act 2015' Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHMA KUSHWAHA Signing time: 3/2/2023 11:52:00 AM 13 but in the present case, enquiry has been conducted during the outbreak of pendamic COVID-19 and it took almost one year, therefore, I am of the opinion that the limitation as prescribed is not mandatory but directory and looking to the facts and circumstances of the present case, the report submitted by the Board and discussed hereinabove, cannot be said to be legal and that enquiry at this stage is not required to be terminated.

1 6 . Thus, considering the view taken by Delhi High Court in aforesaid cases; facts of the present case; nature of offence and the fact that period for concluding enquiry was considered to be directory but not mandatory and preliminary assessment made by the Board with regard to age of juvenile no.1, 2 and 3, this court is of the opinion that the order passed by the Board on 04/01/2022 which was approved by the Sessions Court on 10/06/2022 do not call for any interference.

17. The Revision therefore is without any substance and is hereby dismissed.

(SANJAY DWIVEDI) JUDGE sushma Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHMA KUSHWAHA Signing time: 3/2/2023 11:52:00 AM