The High Court at Allahabad has dismissed a criminal revision challenging an order that directed a juvenile accused to be tried as an adult in a heinous offence case. The Court held that a delay in conducting a preliminary assessment under Section 15 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, does not automatically invalidate the proceedings when the delay is attributable to judicial intervention and pendency.
Background
The matter originated from an F.I.R. (Case Crime No. 15 of 2018) lodged on January 23, 2018, under Section 376 of the I.P.C. and the POCSO Act against the revisionist, Urvesh @ Pravesh Kumar. At the time of the alleged offence, the revisionist was 17 years, 11 months, and 19 days old.
The legal journey of the case involved multiple rounds of litigation. Initially, the trial court rejected the revisionist’s plea to be treated as a juvenile in 2018. However, following a High Court direction in 2021, the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) declared him a juvenile. On December 12, 2022, the JJB directed that he be tried as a juvenile. This was challenged by the victim in an appeal. On October 13, 2023, the Special Judge (POCSO Court), Budaun, set aside the JJB’s decision, ordering the revisionist to be treated as a major during the trial. The revisionist challenged this appellate order in the present criminal revision.
Arguments of the Parties
The counsel for the revisionist argued that the order dated October 13, 2023, violated Section 15 of the JJ Act, 2015. He contended that the preliminary assessment was conducted four years after the alleged offence, by which time the revisionist had become a major. He relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Barun Chandra Thakur Vs. Master Bholu & Anr., asserting that a belated assessment without a speaking order explaining the delay adversely affected the revisionist’s right to a fair trial.
Conversely, the counsel for the victim (Opposite Party No. 2) argued that the delay was caused by the revisionist’s own acts and the pendency of earlier revisions in the High Court. He maintained that the time frame for preliminary assessment is directory, not mandatory, and that judicial intervention excuses such delays.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
Justice Achal Sachdev examined the interplay between Section 14 and Section 15 of the JJ Act. The Court addressed the critical question of whether the three-month timeline for preliminary assessment is mandatory. Citing the Supreme Court in Child in Conflict with Law through his Mother Vs. State of Karnataka & Another (2024), the Court noted:
“The provision of Section 14(3) of the Act, providing three months for completion of a preliminary assessment under Section 15, is not mandatory, and is directory.”
Regarding the four-year delay, the Court observed that when a delay arises because a matter is pending before a High Court, it is “legally excused.” The Court emphasised that the assessment is “backwards-looking,” aimed at evaluating the child’s capacity at the time of the offence, not their current state.
The Court acknowledged the neurobiological challenges of a delayed assessment, stating:
“If the child was, say, 17 at the time of the offence but is now 21, a psychological evaluation conducted today will not accurately reflect his mental and emotional maturity at the time of the offence.”
However, the Court clarified that while such a delay “significantly strengthens a juvenile’s argument” for heightened judicial scrutiny, it “does not automatically invalidate the preliminary assessment.” The Court further noted that Section 20 of the JJ Act specifically addresses scenarios where a child attains the age of 21 during the process, providing a framework for evaluation at that stage.
Decision
The High Court found that the appellate order passed by the Special Judge, POCSO Court, Budaun, did not suffer from any infirmity. Justice Sachdev remarked that the revision appeared to be preferred with the “oblique purpose of hindering the trial.”
The Court upheld the order treating the revisionist as an adult for the trial and dismissed the criminal revision as devoid of merit.
Case Details Block:
- Case Title: Urvesh vs. State of U.P. and another
- Case No.: CRIMINAL REVISION No. – 6123 of 2025
- Bench: Justice Achal Sachdev
- Date: April 17, 2026
