Shedding light on the proper interpretation of Section 19(1) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 ('the JJ Act'), the Bench of Justice Sibo Sankar Mishra observed–

“The discretion contemplated by the provision is as to the course to be adopted after the Children's Court applies its mind to the question whether the child needs to be tried as an adult. It cannot mean that the Children's Court is free to dispense with the statutory determination altogether. Such an interpretation would render the safeguard under Section 19 ineffective and would reduce the carefully structured two-stage mechanism into a single-stage procedure controlled entirely by the Juvenile Justice Board.”

The case emanated from an FIR dated 05.02.2016, alleging repeated sexual intercourse by the accused/appellant with the minor victim stretching over a period of one year – from February 2015 to February 2016, as a result of which the victim became pregnant. The case was registered under Sections 450, 376(2)(i), 376(2)(n) IPC read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act.

The trial Court treated the appellant as an adult for the purpose of trial, especially basing upon the report of the JJB giving suggestion supporting such stance. However, the Court did not independently assess the need for treating the accused as an adult and straightaway proceeded to frame the charges. Upon completion of trial, an order of conviction was recorded under the aforesaid charges.

Assailing the procedure adopted by the trial Court as well as the order of conviction, the appellant preferred this appeal. It was contended on his behalf that the trial court's order suffers from serious infirmity as it failed to hold a mandatory exercise prescribed under Section 19(1) of the JJ Act.

It was argued that Section 19(1) of the Act casts a solemn duty upon the Children's Court to independently assess the need for trial of a juvenile as an adult notwithstanding the finding of the JJB. However, in the instant case, the Court failed to observe that procedural mandate and directly proceeded to hold the trial.

Therefore, the only question which arose for consideration was whether the conviction of the appellant can be sustained despite such procedural flaw, considering the same to be a curable irregularity.

For answering the question, Justice Mishra relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in Ajeet Gurjar v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023 Livelaw (SC) 857 wherein it was held that holding an inquiry in terms of Section 19(1)(i) is not an empty formality. The reason is that if the Children's Court comes to the conclusion that there is no need to try the child as an adult, he will be entitled to be treated differently in the sense that action can be taken against him only in terms of Section 18 of the JJ Act.

Similarly, in Barun Chandra Thakur v. Master Bholu, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 593, the Supreme Court clarified that even after a matter is referred to the Children's Court under Section 18(3), the Children's Court is required to independently examine whether the child is to be tried as an adult.

Consequently, the Court was of the opinion that the trial Court did not merely commit an error while conducting an otherwise valid trial, it failed to undertake the statutory exercise which was a condition precedent to its assuming jurisdiction to try the child as an adult. It was of the view that failure to comply with the procedure struck at the legality of the trial itself. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence were set aside.

Date of Judgment: September 30, 2026

Counsel for the Appellant: Mr. Debidutta Mohapatra, Advocate; Mr. Samvit Mohanty, Amicus Curiae

Counsel for the State: Mr. Ashok Kumar Apat, Addl. Govt. Advocate