Also Read - Recruitment Begins With Advertisement, Not Approval Of Appointment; Subsequent Selection Law Doesn't Govern It: Allahabad High Court

Upon receipt of the record, the Children's Court directly proceeded with a sessions trial without first passing a reasoned order under Section 19(1) of the Act.

The Court convicted the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to fourteen years of rigorous imprisonment.

Also Read - Indian Kanoon Challenges Delhi High Court’s Right to Be Forgotten Order

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana affirmed the conviction and sentence.

Before the Supreme Court the appellant contended that the Children's Court had failed to comply with the mandatory requirement of Section 19(1) before commencing the trial.

Also Read - Kerala High Court Refuses to Suspend Sentence in 2017 Actress Rape Case

The bench observed that Section 19(1) imposes a determinative procedural step that must be satisfied before any further proceedings, whether a sessions trial or a summons case, can be undertaken.

In the absence of compliance with Section 19(1) the entire trial is vitiated, leaving the Court with no option but to set aside the conviction.

Also Read - Karkardooma Court Convicts Tahir Hussain and Four Others in Murder of IB Officer Ankit Sharma

The bench relied on the precedent of Thirumoorthy v State 2024 where a similar non‑compliance with mandatory provisions of the Act led to the setting aside of a conviction.

The Court issued a direction to all Children's Courts across the country that upon receiving records pursuant to transfer or committal under Section 18(3) the first duty after taking cognizance is to pass a reasoned order under Section 19(1) upon due assessment of the child in conflict with law.

Also Read - Delhi High Court Bar Association Calls for Work Abstention Over Proposed Increase in District Courts' Pecuniary Jurisdiction

The appeal was allowed, the conviction recorded by the Children's Court was declared unsustainable, and the appellant was acquitted of the charges.

This decision reinforces the mandatory nature of the reasoned order requirement and underscores that procedural non‑compliance under the Juvenile Justice Act cannot be cured by a subsequent substantive finding.

Also Read - Advocate Seeks Supreme Court Intervention for Police Protection After Alleged Assault at Delhi Residence