Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015; Section 14,15 – The provision of Section 14(3) of the Act, providing for the period of three months for completion of a preliminary assessment under Section 15 of the Act, is not mandatory. The same is held to be directory. The period can be extended, for the reasons to be recorded in writing, by the Chief Judicial Magistrate or, as the case may be, the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. (Para 18)
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015– The words ‘Children’s Court’ and ‘Court of Sessions’ in the Act and the 2016 Rules shall be read interchangeably. Primarily jurisdiction vests in the Children’s Court. However, in the absence of constitution of such Children’s Court in the district, the power to be exercised under the Act is vested with the Court of Sessions. (Para 18)
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015; Section 101- Appeal, under Section 101(2) of the Act against an order of the Board passed under Section 15 of the Act, can be filed within a period of 30 days. The appellate court can entertain the appeal after the expiry of the aforesaid period, provided sufficient cause is shown. Endeavour has to be made to decide any such appeal filed within a period of 30 days. (Para 18)
Practice and Procedure – Wherever lacking, in all orders passed by the Courts, Tribunals, Boards and the quasi-judicial authorities, the names of the Presiding Officers or the Members be specifically mentioned in the orders when signed, including the interim orders. If there is any identification number given to the officers, the same can also be added. – In many of the orders the presence of the parties and/or their counsels is not properly recorded. Further, it is not evident as to on whose behalf adjournment has been sought and granted. It is very relevant fact to be considered at different stages of the case and also to find out as to who was the party delaying the matter. At the time of grant of adjournment, it should specifically be mentioned as to the purpose therefor. This may be helpful in imposition of costs also, finally once we shift to the real terms costs. (Para 17)
Legal Maxims-The rule of causus omissus i.e. ‘what has not been provided in the Statute cannot be supplied by the courts’ in the strict rule of interpretation- However, there are certain exceptions thereto- Referred to Surjit Singh Kalra vs. Union of India (1991) 2 SCC 87: 1991 INSC 36: (1991) 1 SCR 364 and Rajbir Singh Dalal (Dr.) vs. Chaudhari Devi Lal University, Sirsa (2008) 9 SCC 284: 2008 INSC 913: (2008) 11 SCR 992. (Para 9.24)