Ananta Prabha Mohanty Vs State of Odisha

It is submitted by Mr. Sahoo, learned counsel for the petitioner that an application under Section 15(1) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 read with Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 was moved before the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Cuttack (in short ‘the JJB’) for age determination of the petitioner and it was at the behest of opposite party No.2 and the same was disposed of vide Annexure-3 and rejected, as against which, Criminal Appeal No.04 of 2023 was filed leading to the passing of the impugned order dated 21^st July, 2025 i.e. Annexure-6. The submission is

¶18

Page 1 of 5

¶19

that the petitioner having not committed any heinous offence as defined under Section 2(33) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), no such enquiry or preliminary assessment in terms of assessment as prescribed under the Rules framed thereunder was necessary and, hence, it was rightly denied by the learned JJB. It is contended that the learned Court below under the impression that the offence is punishable for more than 7 years directed such preliminary assessment to be held as per the rules vide Annexure-6, which is, therefore, liable to be interfered with. In support of such contention, a decision of the Apex Court in Shilpa Mittal Vrs. State of NCT of Delhi in Criminal Appeal No.34 of 2020 dated 9^th January, 2020 is placed reliance on Mr. Sahoo, learned counsel while challenging the impugned decision of the Court in appeal.

¶20

On the contrary, Mr. Ray, learned AGA for the State refers to Section 14(1) of the POCSO Act, 2012 to contend that the petitioner having committed a heinous offence is punishable in view of sub-section (2) thereof, hence, the learned Court below rightly directed the age determination of the petitioner. The further submission is that the petitioner having committed offences involving a child used for pornography, in view of Section 14(2) of the POCSO Act as such offence is punishable with life imprisonment, it falls within the definition of Section 2(33) of the Act and therefore, no wrong or any illegality has been committed by the learned Court below for determination

¶21

Page 2 of 5

¶22

of age, hence, the impugned judgment at Annexure-6 is perfectly justified.

¶23

Perused the FIR as at Annexure-1 and the allegations therein are about the petitioner having circulated the naked photographs of the victim, namely, opposite party No.2 and hence, the report was lodged leading to the registration of the case under Sections 292(2) (a) and (b) IPC, Sections 12 and 14 of the POCSO Act besides Sections 66(E) and 67 (B) of the I.T. Act against him.

¶24

The submission Mr. Sahoo, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the learned JJB entertained such an application received from opposite party No.2 under the repealed Act. It is, however, submitted that the age determination is permissible as per the Act and the same shall have to be in terms of the Rules prescribed. The contention is that the petitioner cannot be said to have committed heinous offence as defined under Section 2(33) of the Act. Mr. Ray, learned AGA for the State reiterates that in view of the Section 14(2) of the POCSO Act, the petitioner is liable for punishment with imprisonment for life.

¶25

As far as the impugned judgment dated 21^st July, 2025 i.e. Annexure-6 is concerned, the learned Court below proceeded on the premise that the maximum sentence prescribed in Section 14 of the POCSO Act is more than 7 years and hence, a heinous offence as per the definition of Section 2(33) of the Act. But, in the considered view of the

¶26

Page 3 of 5

¶27

Court, such a conclusion is clearly erroneous since Section 14(1) of the POCSO Act provides imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than 5 years and fine and in the event of second or subsequent conviction, the imprisonment shall not be less than 7 years and also fine. So far as Section 2(33) of the Act is concerned, it defines ‘heinous offences’ which includes the offences for which the minimum punishment under the IPC or any other law for the time being in force to be seven years or more.

¶28

The Court perused the decision of the Apex Court in Shilpa Mittal (supra), wherein, it has been held and observed that an offence which does not provide a minimum sentence of 7 years cannot be treated to be heinous offence, however, further proceeded to held that where maximum sentence is more than 7 years imprisonment without any minimum sentence of less than 7 years provided, it shall still be treated as a serious offence within the meaning of the Act.

¶29

In such view of the matter, considering the definition of the heinous offences as per 2(33) of the Act, the offence committed by the petitioner under Section 14(1) of the POCSO Act is not heinous offence as such and hence, the learned Court below fell into serious error in concluding so and on the premise that the imprisonment prescribed is for more than 7 years, which is apparently in respect of second and subsequent conviction where the imprisonment to be not less than 7 years and fine. On a bare reading of FIR., this Court does not find

¶30

Page 4 of 5

¶31

any such sexual mischief committed by the petitioner involving an offence under Sections 5, 7, 9 punishable under Sections 4, 6 & 8 besides Section 10 respectively. So therefore, the conclusion of the Court is that the learned Court below could not have treated the offence committed by the petitioner as heinous offence defined in Section 2(33) of the Act to direct the preliminary assessment vis-à-vis the age determination of the petitioner overruling the decision of the learned JJB and therefore, the same is liable to be interfered with and set at naught.

¶32

10. Accordingly, it is ordered.

¶33

In the result, the revision petition is allowed. As a necessary corollary, the impugned judgment vide Annexure-6 in Criminal Appeal No.04 of 2023 by the learned 3^rd Additional Sessions Judge, Cuttack is hereby set aside a the direction to the learned JJB to proceed with JJC Case No.33 of 2022 for its disposal as per and in accordance with law.

¶34

12. Issue urgent certified copy as per rules.

¶35

(R.K. Pattanaik) Judge

¶36

Alok

¶37

Signature Not Verified

¶38

Digitally Signed Signed by: ALOK RANJAN SETHY Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT Date: 12-Sep-2025 13:08:07

¶39

Page 5 of 5

Ananta Prabha Mohanty v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ananta Prabha Mohanty v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mir Adil Ali(Raju) Vs Udayanath Sahoo

Rajesh Kumar Dora Vs Sanatan Pradhan

Rajesh Kumar Dora Vs Sanatan Padhan

Mithila Behera Vs State of Odisha

Satyanarayan Purohit Vs State of Odisha

Hrushikesh Nayak Vs State of Odisha