Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I find that it is not in dispute that preliminary assessment order under Section 15 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 was passed after statutory period of three months. After going through the relevant provisions, I also find that Section 14 of the J.J. Act,2015 itself relates to a procedural aspect and sub section 3 of Section 14 of the said Act provides for preliminary assessment of the suitability of treating the juvenile as an adult in cases of heinous offence, does not create a right to the juvenile not to be assessed after the passage of three months from the date of first production of the juvenile before the Board. Besides, as the delay has adequately been explained by the State and as no prejudice has been caused to the revisionist, therefore, purely procedural nature of the provision to sub section 14(3) need not compel this Court to interpret 'shall, as 'shall' under all circumstances. Recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Child in Conflict with Law Vs. State of Karnataka and another, (2024) 8 SCC 473 , has held that time provided for completing the preliminary assessment under Section 14(3) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 is directory, and not mandatory. I also find that the Juvenile Justice Board conducted the preliminary assessment of the revisionist in the light of guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Barun Chandra Thakur Vs. Master Bholu and another, (2023) 12 SCC 401 and after
