LLM Notes: Important Notes on Juvenile Delinquency {Part 1}

 1) LLM Notes: Socio-Economic Background of Delinquent Juveniles in India

https://www.lawweb.in/2025/10/llm-notes-socio-economic-background-of.html

2) LLM Notes: Role of juvenile justice board as per indian law

https://www.lawweb.in/2025/10/llm-notes-role-of-juvenile-justice.html

3) LLM Notes: Role of compulsory education as a preventive strategy for juvenile delinquency

https://www.lawweb.in/2025/10/llm-notes-role-of-compulsory-education.html

Print Page

LLM Notes: Role of juvenile justice board as per indian law

 The Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) in India is a specialized quasi-judicial body constituted under Section 4 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, to deal exclusively with cases involving children in conflict with law. The Board is established by the State Government in each district and consists of one first-class judicial magistrate (Principal Magistrate) and two social workers (at least one woman), with social workers having experience or professional qualifications in child welfare or related fields.

Role and Functions of the Juvenile Justice Board

Print Page

Understanding the Applicability of the POCSO Act: Can a Child Be Prosecuted Under POCSO Act?

 The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) is a landmark legislation in India, designed to safeguard children from sexual abuse and exploitation. While the Act is primarily focused on protecting children as victims, questions often arise regarding its applicability and whether a child can be prosecuted under its provisions. This article explores these aspects in detail.

Who Does the POCSO Act Apply To?

The POCSO Act is a gender-neutral law that applies to:

Print Page

P&H HC: Juvenile Justice board should not reject bail application of juvenile by mechanically reproducing provisions of Juvenile Justice Act

In the case on hand, the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile

Justice Board, Gurdaspur, lackadaisically recorded that there were

reasonable grounds to believe that if the petitioner was released on bail, it

was likely to bring him into association with a known criminal or expose him

to moral, physical or psychological danger. The learned Principal Magistrate

further recorded that his release would defeat the ends of justice. This

mechanical reproduction of the legal provision was mere lip service by the

learned Principal Magistrate to the legal requirement but is of no avail, given

the fact that he, having referred to the acquittal of Resham Singh, contradicted himself thereafter by saying that the evidence of the prosecutrix was yet to be recorded.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH.

CRR-992- 2020

Date of Decision : July 13, 2020

Ashish Masih @ Ashu Vs  State of Punjab

CORAM :  MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

Print Page

Bombay HC: Factors to be considered by court while transferring juvenile to children court

When Kent's challenge eventually reached the US Supreme Court, it has considered the factors to be considered before transferring juveniles to criminal court. According to it, the judges must assess these factors thoroughly before waiving a juvenile to criminal court:

1. The seriousness of the alleged offense to the community and whether protecting the community requires waiver;

2. Whether the alleged offense was committed in an aggressive, violent, premeditated, or willed manner;

3. Whether the alleged offense was against persons or against property, greater weight being given to offenses against persons, especially if personal injury resulted;

4. The prosecutive merit, i.e., whether there is evidence upon which a [court] may be expected to return an indictment;

5. The desirability of trial and disposition of the entire offense in one court when the juvenile's associates in the alleged offense are adults;

6. The sophistication and maturity of the juvenile by consideration of his home, environmental situation, emotional attitude, and pattern of living;

7. The record and previous history of the juvenile, including previous contacts with. . . law enforcement agencies, juvenile courts and other jurisdictions, prior periods of probation. . . or prior commitments to juvenile institutions;

8. The prospects for adequate protection of the public and the likelihood of reasonable rehabilitation of the juvenile (if he is found to have committed the alleged offense) by the use of procedures, services, and facilities currently available to the juvenile court.12

(italics supplied)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Criminal Appeal No. 1153 of 2018, Criminal Writ Petition No. 1346 of 2018 and Criminal Application No. 262 of 2018 in Writ Petition No. 1346 of 2018

Decided On: 15.07.2019

Mumtaz Ahmed Nasir Khan  Vs.  The State of Maharashtra 

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Dama Seshadri Naidu, J.

Print Page

Whether a child, who has not committed heinous offence can be transferred to Children's Court?

 The legal issue is raised as follows :
Whether a child, who has not committed heinous offence can
be transferred to Children's Court?
 Under section 15 of the said Act, preliminary assessment in
respect of offence whether is heinous, is to be made by Juvenile Justice
Board. The word “heinous offences” is defined under section 2 (33) of
the said Act, which states as follows :
“2 (33). “heinous offences” includes the offences for
which the minimum punishment under the Indian Penal
Code (45 of 1860) or any other law for the time being in
force is imprisonment for seven years or more” .
10. Section 2 (54) of the said Act defines “serious offences” includes
the offences for which the punishment under the Indian Penal Code (45
of 1860) or any other law for the time being in force, is imprisonment
between three to seven years.

11. Under section 307 of IPC, minimum punishment is not
prescribed, but punishment may extend to ten years and fine, and if
hurt is caused to any person, then punishment can be extended upto
life imprisonment.
12. Thus, due to the benchmark of minimum punishment of 7 years
or more, section 307 of IPC cannot fall within the ambit of heinous
offences.
 In the present case, all the petitioners though are between the
age group of 16 to 18 years, they have not committed heinous offences
and, therefore, their case is not covered under section 15 of the said Act
and no order can be passed under section 18 (3) of the said Act of
transferring the case to Children's Court. Hence, the order dated 19th
January, 2018 passed by Juvenile Justice Board of Sangli District and
also the order dated 13th July, 2018 passed by Juvenile Justice Board,
Sangli are quashed and set aside and the inquiry is to be conducted by
Juvenile Justice Board, Sangli under section 18 (3) of the said Act.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 4044 OF 2018

 Saurabh Jalinder Nangre, Vs State of Maharashtra,

CORAM: MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.
DATED: DECEMBER 10, 2018

Print Page

Whether juvenile justice board can record plea of guilty of mother of accused juvenile?

 During the course of hearing, it was brought to the notice of the concerned Court that on 16th September, 2012, the said Krishna was convicted by the Juvenile Justice Board, Pune, for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and he was directed to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/-. He was purportedly released on probation of good conduct. The said order was passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Pune (for short "the Board") on the basis of plea of guilt recorded of the mother of the Juvenile. Though on the date of passing of the order, the age of the Juvenile was 27 years, his plea was not recorded. When his plea was earlier recorded, he had specifically pleaded not guilty. Therefore, by expressing a view that the order dated 16th September, 2012 passed by the Board is nullity, this Court disposed of the Writ Petition No. 3569 of 2012 by the judgment and order dated 20th December, 2012. While disposing of the Writ Petition, this Court exercised the power under Section 53 of the said Act by entertaining the suo motu revision against the order dated 16th September, 2012 passed by the Board. Accordingly, the Revision Application has been numbered and as stated above, the same has been assigned to this Court.

The case bearing STC No. 40 of 2000 is restored to the file of the Juvenile Justice Board, Pune; We make it clear that the plea of the Petitioner's mother recorded on 16th September, 2012 is bad in law and shall be ignored by the Juvenile Justice Board, Pune;

MANU/MH/0515/2013

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Suo Motu Revision Application No. 1 of 2013

Decided On: 08.03.2013

 High Court on its Own Motion
Vs.
State of Maharashtra & Anr.

Coram:Abhay Shreeniwas Oka and A.P. Bhangale, JJ.

Print Page

Whether juvenile can be denied employment on ground that he was convicted by juvenile justice board?

The   Juvenile   Justice   (Care   &

Protection of Children) Act, 2015, (‘the Act
of   2015’   for   short)   came   into   force   on   1st
January,   2016.   Since   the   offences   alleged
against   the   petitioner   were   committed   on
22.07.2010 and he has been dealt with by the
Juvenile Justice Board on 15th  January, 2011,
he   would   be   governed   by   the   Act   of   2002,
which   was   in   force   at   the   relevant   time.
Even   under   the   Act   of   2015,   there   is   an
analogous provision in Section 24 pertaining
removal   of   disqualification   attached   to
conviction   of   an   offence   of   “a   juvenile   in
conflict with law”, who is referred to as “a
child in conflict with law” as per the Act of
2015.      
10. As   mentioned   in   the   statement   of
objects and reasons of the Act of 2000, one
of   the   objects   is   to   rehabilitate   the
juvenile/child   in   conflict   with   law.   The
provisions   of   sub­section   (1)   of   Section   19
would   provide   the   juvenile   in   conflict   with

law found guilty of an offence an opportunity
to   amend   and   regulate   his   delinquency.
Removal   of   disqualification   attached   to   a
conviction of a juvenile in conflict with law
would   have   the   effect   of   opening   the   doors
for   him   of   a   descent   and   disciplined
civilized life. The order holding him guilty
of an offence  would not disqualify  him from
getting any job to which otherwise  he would
be legitimately entitled.   
11. Sub­section (1) of Section 19 of the
Act of 2000 starts with a non obstante clause
i.e.   “notwithstanding   anything   in   any   other
law”.   In   the   directive   no.33   (d)   it   is
mentioned   that   the   candidate   must   submit   an
affidavit   giving   his   personal   details
including the fact that he has not been ever
convicted for any offence under law. The said
clause   cannot   be   used   for   disqualifying   the
petitioner  for his enrolment in the Army on
the   ground   that   he   was   held   guilty   by   the

Juvenile Justice Board. Such disqualification
has   been   specifically   removed   by   the
provisions   of   sub­section   (1)   of   Section   19
of   the   Act   of   2000   and   the  non   obstante
clause used therein would override  directive
no.33 (d) issued by respondent nos. 3 and 4.
Respondent no.4, therefore, was not justified
in   cancelling   the   candidature   of   the
petitioner  for his enrolment in the Army on
the   ground   that   he   was   held   guilty   by   the
Juvenile   Justice   Board,   Nanded.   The   letter
dated   31st  March,   2016,  issued   by   respondent
no.4   cancelling   candidature   of   the
petitioner,   in   the   above   circumstances,   is
liable   to   be   quashed   and   set   aside.
Respondent  no.4 will have to be directed to
reconsider the candidature of the petitioner
for enrolment into the Army on his own merits
without being influenced by his conviction by
the Juvenile Justice Board.   
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.5093 OF 2016 

Kailas Sambhaji Lohakre,  V  The State of Maharashtra,  

      CORAM:  S.S.SHINDE & 
              SANGITRAO S.PATIL,JJ.
 Citation: 2016(6) MHLJ 957

Print Page

Whether an employee can be removed from service on ground of registration of offence against him when he was juvenile?

 In the present case, we have to examine whether merely because the
petitioner was called before the Juvenile Justice Board in connection
with some accusation made against the petitioner when, admittedly,
he was a minor of 14 years would itself justify or create any
impediment in his appointment in Government service. In this
connection, we will take note of the provisions of Section 19 of the
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. Section
19 reads thus :
“19. Removal of disqualification attaching to
conviction.—
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other
law, a juvenile who has committed an offence and has
been dealt with under the provisions of this Act shall
not suffer disqualification, if any, attaching to a
conviction of an offence under such law.
(2) The Board shall make an order directing that the
relevant records of such conviction shall be removed
after the expiry of the period of appeal or a reasonable
period as prescribed under the rules, as the case may
be.”
7. Taking note of the said provision and the admitted facts in
the present case, we find that mere non-disclosure of the alleged
accusation during the period when the petitioner was a minor would
not, be a disqualification of being appointed to Government service.
8. In this regard, the Apex Court in the case of
Commissioner of Police and others (supra), has observed at paras 8,
10, 11 and 12, thus :  
“ 8. We respectfully agree with the Delhi High Court
that the cancellation of his candidature was illegal, but
we wish to give our own opinion in the matter. When
the incident happened the respondent must have been
about 20 years of age. At that age young people often
commit indiscretions, and such indiscretions can often
be condoned. After all, youth will be youth. They are
not expected to behave in as mature a manner as older
people. Hence, our approach should be to condone
minor indiscretions made by young people rather than
to brand them as criminals for the rest of their lives.
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
WRIT PETITION NO. 171/2014
Pravin Arjun Shetkar

 V
State of Goa,
 CORAM :- F.M. REIS &
 K.L. WADANE, JJ.
 Date : - 16 OCTOBER 2015.
Citation: 2016 (5)ALLMR356

Print Page