- (1.) WITH reference to the order passed by this Court on 18.04.2007, report has been filed through the affidavit by the Legal Coordinator of the petitioner -Bal Sakha. The report would indicate that the petitioner's counsel, Faiz Ur Rahman and the Advocate General visited various Observation Homes and found out various irregularities in those Homes. They give the following factors: Amit Ambar Kachhap Versus Union Of India (i) In the Observation Homes at Chaibasa, attached toilet facilities are lacking and the same are required to be provided; (ii) In the Observation Homes at Ranchi, water supply is inadequate especially in summer season during which period the tap water supply is erratic and irregular. Deep boring and a motor pump are required for the said Observation Home; (iii) With respect to the medical report on the assessment of age it takes a very long time and, therefore, suitable direction by this Court may be given to the Civil Surgeon cum Chief Medical Officer for submission of the medical report in time without delay.
(2.) WE have heard Advocate General. There is no difficulty in giving direction in respect of above three items as the Advocate General also would indicate that suitable direction may be issued so that these could be rectified without any further delay. Therefore, direction is issued to the Secretary, Social Welfare, Child and Woman Development, Government of Jharkhand to see that proper facilities are provided at the Observation Homes, Chaibasa including the toilet facility. It is also noticed that in Ranchi Observation Home water supply is irregular. Therefore, it would be appropriate to provide deep boring and motor pump in the Observation Home at Ranchi. It is also noticed that invariably in respect of the assessment of age of the victims or inmates or the destitutes of the Homes, the Civil Surgeon cum Chief Medical Officer does not issue the medical report in time. Therefore, it is appropriate to give a direction to the Civil Surgeon cum Chief Medical Officer to see that when a destitute is produced before the Medical Board which has been constituted, it should assess the age and give a report within three days from the date of examination. This direction would apply to all the districts. The Secretary, Social Welfare, Child & Woman Development, Government of Jharkhand shall see that the prevailing condition in all the Observation Homes situated at seven districts could be improved inclusive of regular water supply without any further delay. All the seven Juvenile Justice Boards will consider the particulars of the juvenile offenders who are charged with the offences punishable upto 7 years and their cases could be dealt with in accordance with the guidelines given by the Supreme Court in paragraphs of the judgment rendered in the case of Sheela Barse V/s. Union of India, AIR 1986 SC 1773. The relevant portion of paragraph 12 of the aforesaid judgment is as follows: 12. We would also direct that where a complaint is filed or first information report is lodged against a child below the age of 16 years for an offence punishable with imprisonment of not more than 7 years, the investigation shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of filing of the complaint or lodging of the First Information Report and if the investigation is not completed within this time, the case against the child must be treated as closed. If within three months, the charge -sheet is filed against the child in case of an offence punishable with imprisonment of not more than 7 years, the case must be tried and disposed of within a further period of 6 months at the outside and this period should be inclusive of the time taken up in committal proceedings, if any....If an accused is not tried speedily and his case remains pending before the Magistrate or the Sessions Court for an unreasonable length of time, it is clear that his fundamental right to speedy trial would be violated unless, of course, the trial is held up on account of some interim order passed by a superior court or the accused is responsible for the delay in the trial of the case. The consequence of violation of the fundamental right to speedy trial would be that the prosecution itself would be liable to be quashed on the ground that it is in breach of the fundamental right. ... So far as a child accused of an offence punishable with imprisonment of not more than 7 years is concerned, we would regard a period of 3 months from the date of filing of the complaint or lodging of the First Information Report as the maximum time permissible for investigation and a period of 6 months form the filing of the charge -sheet as a reasonable period within which the trial of the child must be completed. If that is not done, Amit Ambar Kachhap Versus Union Of India the prosecution against the child would be liable to be quashed.
(3.) SO this observation/direction of the Supreme Court which has been given to all the State Governments would apply to the present case also. Therefore, all the Juvenile Justice Boards situated at 7 districts are directed to verify how many accused are either on bail or in jail or facing trial for about six months without commencement of the trial where they are charged for the offences punishable upto 7 years. After these particulars are collected, the Juvenile Justice Board is to drop the matter as directed by the Supreme Court in the judgment cited above(Supra). The Juvenile Justice Boards shall take into consideration the fact that the age of the juvenile has been enhanced from 16 years to 18 years. So the principle laid down by the Supreme Court could be applied in respect of the juvenile offenders who are aged upto 18 years.;