CRL.REV.P./542/2026 of R......P....(CCL) Vs STATE (NCT OF DELHI) on 14 September 2026

O R D E R

% 14.09.2026

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. The present revision petition has been filed under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 on behalf of the Revisionist, a Child in Conflict with Law (CCL), through his father and natural guardian, seeking setting aside of the impugned order dated 25.05.2026 passed by the Learned ASJ-01 (POCSO), Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in CA No. 208/2026.

3. By the impugned order, the Learned ASJ dismissed the application seeking condonation of delay as well as the accompanying appeal under Section 101 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, which had been preferred against the order dated 28.06.2025 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board in relation to FIR No. 395/2025, P.S. Wazirabad. The Revisionist is aggrieved by the dismissal of the appeal on the ground of delay and seeks interference of this Court in the interest of justice.

4. The grievance of the petitioner is that, though he challenged the order dated 28.06.2025 passed by the Learned JJ Board, the appeal against the said order was filed only on 29.04.2026 before the Sessions Court, which dismissed the same on the ground of limitation.

5. The plea of the Learned Counsel for the petitioner is that, though there is a delay of eight months in filing the present appeal, the petitioner as well as his previous counsel did not have any knowledge of the legal procedure as to under which provision the appeal was to be filed under the JJ Act, and whether they could file the appeal or not. It is further submitted that a copy of the impugned order was not supplied on time and, therefore, there was a delay in filing the appeal.

6. The Learned APP for the State, who appears on advance notice, submits that there is no infirmity in the impugned order. He submits that the learned Counsel for the petitioner was very much present in Court when the impugned order dated 28.06.2025 was passed.

7. This court has heard both the parties.

8. It is a well-settled principle of law that technicalities should not come in the way of justice. Though the impugned order was passed on 28.06.2025 and the appeal was filed after eight months from the passing of the said order, the fact remains that, by way of the order dated 28.06.2025, the rights of the petitioner were duly affected and, by way of the present appeal, he has challenged the same.

9. No doubt, there is a delay, but technicalities should not come in the way of justice. In such circumstances, the revision petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and the order dated 25.05.2026 passed by the Learned Appellate Court is set aside.

10. The matter is remanded back to the Learned Appellate Court, which shall hear the matter afresh on the merits of the case, after giving an opportunity to the petitioner to argue his case on merits.

11. The petition, along with the pending applications, is disposed of.

12. The parties are directed to appear before the learned Appellate Court on 14.10.2026.

13. A copy of this order be sent to the learned Trial Court for information and necessary compliance

14. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith. MADHU JAIN, J SEPTEMBER 14, 2026/JYH/rm