The Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it clear that a child in conflict with law — tried as an adult and kept in a place of safety till attaining the age of twenty-one years — is entitled to a mandatory fresh evaluation of his reformative progress before completion of the prescribed period of stay.Describing the exercise as an “important statutory safeguard” that is “not an empty formality” but is intended “to further the reformative object of the Juvenile Justice Act”, the High Court has directed all Children’s Courts and Special POCSO Courts across Punjab, Haryana and the Union Territory, Chandigarh to ensure strict compliance with the statutory procedure envisaged under Sections 19 and 20 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, read with Rule 13 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Model Rules, 2016.The directions were issued by Justice Mandeep Pannu while allowing an application for suspension of sentence filed by a child in conflict with law convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Special Court, Hoshiarpur.Justice Pannu noticed that the mandatory statutory exercise contemplated under the Juvenile Justice Act was not shown to have been undertaken after the appellant attained the age of 21. The appellant was admittedly a child in conflict with law at the time of offence and was tried as an adult by the Children’s Court/Special Court.Justice Pannu’s Bench was told during the course of hearing that appellant was convicted on March 16, 2023, and sentenced to 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment for rape under Section 376 IPC read with Section 4 of the POCSO Act, besides separate sentences under Sections 363, 366, 354 and 452 IPC.According to the custody certificate produced before the court, he had undergone actual custody of two years, eight months and three days. The total period undergone, including remission, was three years, three months and eight days out of the total 10 years’ sentence.Referring to Sections 19, 20 and 21 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, read with Rule 13 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Model Rules, 2016, Justice Pannu observed: “Where a child in conflict with law is tried as an adult and is kept in a place of safety till attaining the age of twenty-one years, the Children’s Court is under a statutory obligation, after the child attains the age of twenty-one years and before he completes the prescribed period of stay, to undertake a fresh evaluation of his reformative progress”.Justice Pannu added the court, for the purpose, was required to obtain the reports of the Probation Officer,District Child Protection Unit or Social Worker, assess whether the child had undergone reformative changes and was capable of becoming a contributing member of society, and thereafter pass an appropriate order.The court also referred to Section 20(2) of the Act, which empowers the Children’s Court — after completing the prescribed procedure — either to release the child on such conditions as it deems fit, including appointment of a monitoring authority for the remainder of the prescribed term of stay, or to direct that the child shall complete the remainder of the term in jail.The Bench suspended the substantive sentence of the applicant/appellant during the pendency of the appeal. Before parting with the case, Justice Pannu observed that the procedure prescribed under Sections 19 and 20 of the Act, read with Rule 13 of the Model Rules, “embodies an important statutory safeguard in respect of children in conflict with law tried as adults” and that “strict compliance with the said provisions is essential to achieve the reformative object of the legislation.”Justice Pannu also directed the Registry to circulate the order amongst all the “Presiding Officers of the Children’s Courts/Special POCSO Courts in the States of Punjab, Haryana and Union Territory, Chandigarh and Chandigarh Judicial Academy for information and ensuring due compliance with the statutory provisions in appropriate cases.”