[2026:RJ-JP:15610] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 1373/2020 Vinod Kumar Bairwa S/o Shri Arjun Lal Bairwa, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Village Khirni, Tehsil And P.S. Malarna Doongar, District Sawaimadhopur ----Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan, through Public Prosecutor ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shamsuddin Ansari For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jitendra Singh Rathore, PP JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 15/04/2026 Reportable 1. The instant petition has been preferred for quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 06.05.2019, passed by the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Sawaimadhopur (hereinafter referred to as “the JJB”) by which the application submitted by the petitioner for review of the judgment dated 13.10.2014 passed by the JJB has been rejected. 2. The petitioner was found guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 325, 336 read with Section 34 IPC. However, instead of convicting the petitioner, he was released on probation for a period of one year, with the condition that he would maintain peace and tranquility and would not repeat the same offence again and accordingly the benefit of probation under Section 15(e) of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000 (for short “Act of 2000”) was extended to him. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was working in Saudi Arabia. The Government of Saudi Arabia on [2026:RJ-JP:15610] (2 of 9) [CRLMP-1373/2020] the basis of the aforesaid judgment dated 13.10.2014 passed by the JJB, wherein the petitioner was found guilty and was convicted for the above stated offences, removed him from service and denied to re-employ him. 4. Counsel further submits that even the Passport Authorities are treating the petitioner as ineligible, and the Police is also treating him as a convicted person. Hence, under these circumstances, an application was submitted by the petitioner to review the judgment dated 13.10.2014 and delete the operative portion of the judgment wherein it was stated that the petitioner is found guilty for the offences under Sections 341, 323, 325, 336 read with Section 34 IPC. He further submits that unless and until that part is deleted, the petitioner would be deprived of the opportunity to earn his and his family’s livelihood at his place of work (abroad). Hence, under these circumstances, interference of this Court is warranted. 5. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the prayer and the arguments raised by counsel for the petitioner and submits that by passing the impugned judgment dated 13.10.2014, the JJB has categorically mentioned therein that the said judgment of conviction would not affect the future of the petitioner. Hence, interference of this Court is not warranted. 6. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on record. 7. This fact is not in dispute that the petitioner was a juvenile at the time when the incident occurred on 05.11.2008. This fact is also not in dispute that the petitioner has faced trial for the alleged offences, as stated above, before the JJB. This fact is also [2026:RJ-JP:15610] (3 of 9) [CRLMP-1373/2020] not in dispute that the petitioner being juvenile, confessed the crime and on the basis of his confession, he was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 325, 336 read with Section 34 IPC. This fact is also not in dispute that instead of convicting the petitioner, benefit of probation was extended to him, since he was a juvenile at the relevant point of time and directed him to furnish a personal bond and surety bond and to maintain peace and tranquility for a period of one year, subject to the undertaking that he would not commit the same offence again in future. This fact is also not in dispute that while passing the aforesaid judgment, it has been incorporated in the order itself, that the impugned judgment will not come in the way of the petitioner in future. 8. Presently, the petitioner is facing difficulties in earning his livelihood in abroad i.e. Saudi Arabia and particularly in the Government of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia on the ground that he is a convicted person. The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (for short “Act of 2015”) and the earlier Act of 2000 were enacted by the legislature for the welfare of the children and juvenile, who are in conflict with law and who are facing trial before the JJB. Section 3 of the Act of 2015 deals with the general principles which are required to be followed in administration of the Act. Section 3(xiv) of the Act of 2015 deals with “Principle of fresh start: All past records of any child under the Juvenile Justice system should be erased except in special circumstances”. At the same time, Section 24 of the Act of 2015 deals with removal of disqualification on the findings of an offence. Section 24(2) lays down that the Juvenile Justice Board shall make [2026:RJ-JP:15610] (4 of 9) [CRLMP-1373/2020] an order directing the Police, or by the Children’s Court to its own registry that the relevant records of such conviction shall be destroyed after the expiry of the period of appeal or, as the case may be, a reasonable period as may be prescribed, but the proviso attached to this sub-Section says that in case of heinous offence where the child is found to be in conflict with law under clause (i) of sub-Section (1) of Section 19 of the Act of 2015, the relevant records of conviction of such child shall be retained by the Children’s Court. 9. In the instant case, the alleged offences does not fall within the category of “heinous offences”. Heinous offences are those offences wherein the maximum punishment of 7 years or more has been prescribed as under Section 2 (33) of the Act of 2015. Section 2 (54) of the Act of 2015 defines “serious offences” wherein, the maximum punishment is prescribed as 3 years not exceeding 7 years. In the instant case, none of the offences are punishable with imprisonment of 7 years or more, hence, the aforesaid offences do not fall within the category of heinous offences, rather the same fall within the category of “serious offences”, as defined in the definition of clause 2(54) of the Act of 2015. 10. The Act of 2000 and the Act of 2015 enacted to amend the law relating to juvenile in conflict with law and the children in need of care and protection by providing them proper care and protection, and by creating an atmosphere for their development, needs and by adopting a child friendly approach in adjudication and disposition of the matters in the best interest of the children and for their ultimate rehabilitation. Section 21 of the Act of 2000 [2026:RJ-JP:15610] (5 of 9) [CRLMP-1373/2020] prohibits publication of name of the juvenile in conflict with law and the underlying principle of the provision is to protect the juvenile from any adverse consequences on account of any offence, committed by such juvenile. 11. However, several issues, such as increasing incidents of abuse of children in institutions, inadequate facilities, quality of care and rehabilitation measures in Homes, delays in adoption due to faulty and incomplete processing, lack of clarity regarding roles, responsibilities and accountability of institutions, sale of children for adoption purposes, etc. had cropped up in recent times. Further, increasing cases of crimes committed by children in the age group of 16-18 years in recent years made it evident that the provisions under the Act were ill equipped to tackle child offenders in this age group. Since numerous changes were required in the Act of 2000 to address the above mentioned issues, it was proposed to repeal existing the Act of 2000 and re-enact a comprehensive legislation. The Act of 2015 ensures proper care, protection, development, treatment and social re-integration of children in difficult, circumstance by adopting a child friendly approach keeping in view the best interest of the child. 12. As per the provisions contained under Section 19 of the Act of 2000, a juvenile who has committed an offence and tried under the provisions of the said Act shall not suffer any disqualification attaching to the conviction of an offence, under such law. Sub section (2) of the Section 19 further lays down that the Board shall make an order directing that all the relevant records related [2026:RJ-JP:15610] (6 of 9) [CRLMP-1373/2020] to such conviction shall be removed after expiry of the period of Appeal or a reasonable period, as prescribed under the Rules. 13. Likewise, Section 24 of the Act of 2015 deals with removal of disqualification on the findings of an offence and the same is reproduced as under:— “Section 24. Removal of disqualification on the finding of an offence. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, a child who has committed an offence and has been dealt with under the provisions of this Act shall not suffer disqualification, if any, attached to a conviction of an offence under such law: Provided that in case of a child who has completed or is above the age of sixteen years and is found to be in conflict with law by. the Children's Court under clause (i) of sub- section (1) of section 19, the provisions of sub- section (1) shall not apply. (2) The Board shall make an order directing the Police, or by the Childrens Court to its own registry that the relevant records of such conviction shall.be destroyed after the expiry of the period of appeal or, as the case may be, a reasonable period as may be prescribed: Provided that in case of a heinous offence where the child is found to be in conflict with law under clause (i) of sub section (1) of section 19, the relevant records of conviction of such child shall be retained by the Children's Court. 14. 14. Similarly, in exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to subsection (1) of Section 110 of the Act of 2015, the Central Government framed the Juvenile Justice (Care, Protection of Children) Model Rules, 2016 (for short “the Rules of 2016”) wherein Rule 14 deals with the destruction of record of conviction of a child in conflict with law, after expiry of the period mentioned therein. Rule 14 is reproduced as under:- “14. Destruction of records. The records of conviction in respect of a child in conflict with law shall be kept in safe custody till the expiry of the period of appeal [2026:RJ-JP:15610] (7 of 9) [CRLMP-1373/2020] or for a period of seven years, and no longer, and thereafter be destroyed by the Personin-charge or Board or Children's Court as the case may be: Provided that in case of a heinous offence where the child is found to be in conflict with law under clause (i) of sub-section (1) of section 19 of the Act, the relevant records of conviction of such child shall be retained by the Children's Court.” 15. Meaning thereby, the provisions contained under Sec. 24 of the Act of 2015 and Rule 14 of the Rules of 2016 provides that the right to be forgotten” for a juvenile is an absolute right for safeguarding their future prospects.” 16. Perusal of the record indicates that the petitioner has faced trial for the offences under Sections 341, 323, 325, 336 read with Section 34 IPC and at that time he was minor, though he has been found guilty and convicted for the above stated offences but the benefit of probation was extended to him under Section 15(e) of the Act of 2000. 17. The record indicates that no appeal against the aforesaid judgment of the JJB was submitted neither by the petitioner nor by the State and the same has attained finality. Therefore, under this bona fide belief, the petitioner remained under the impression that the relevant record with regard to his conviction must have been removed and this is the precise reason on account of which he has lost his earnest livelihood in abroad, since the Government of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has removed him from service and refused to re-employ him on the basis of the impugned judgment of conviction. Hence, under such circumstances, the entire purpose of enacting the Act of 2000 and 2015 has been frustrated. [2026:RJ-JP:15610] (8 of 9) [CRLMP-1373/2020] 18. This Court observes that the intention of the Legislature behind introducing Section 3(xiv) & 24 of the Act of 2015 as well as Rule 14 of the Rules of 2016 is to extend the protection to the juvenile against the conviction and to remove the said conviction as disqualification for future prospects of the juvenile concerned. This Court also observes that the legislative intent behind such enactment is clear that if the juvenile is convicted for the offences, the concerned Court/Board has the option to extend the benefit of Section 24 of the Act of 2015 by removing the disqualification coupled with the fact that the language of the said section also requires destroying such conviction record and then after extending the benefit of Section 24 of the Act of 2015, the juvenile concerned cannot be declared/treated as ineligible for any future employment in any Government Department etc. or for any other prospects in public employment. 19. This Court is conscious of the “Right to be Forgotten” which has been referred and dealt by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Jorawer Singh Mundy @ Jorawar Singh Mundy Vs. Union of India & Ors. while deciding WP(C) No. 3981/2021 on 12.04.2021. 20. On co-joint consideration of the right to be forgotten as emerged in the case of Jorawer Singh Mundy (supra) as well as the enactment of Section 3(xiv) and Section 24 of the Act of 2015 and Rule 14 of the Rules of 2016, this Court observes that ‘in cases of Juvenile delinquency’, if any criminal antecedents/record juvenile is allowed to remain intact, to be assessed, amongst others, by union the technology tools and the [2026:RJ-JP:15610] (9 of 9) [CRLMP-1373/2020] same has not only to bring in relation and discredit to the juvenile but also adversely impact the future prospects of the juvenile, among other things. 21. This Court does not wish to enter into the realm of the order “Right to be Forgotten”, but at present in special considering the right to be forgotten for a juvenile in the provision of Section 24 of the Act of 2015 to be an absolute right for safeguarding the future prospects of such juvenile. 22. Considering the overall facts and circumstances as narrated herein above and for the reasons stated above, the instant petition stands allowed and the impugned order dated 06.05.2019 passed by the JJB stands quashed and set aside. Keeping in view of the amendment contained under Section 3(xiv) of the Act of 2000 and Act of 2015, it is hereby ordered that the JJB as well as the concerned Police Station would erase the record of the conviction of the petitioner from their records and whenever an application is submitted by the petitioner for getting his character certificate, this fact should not be reflected in the said character certificate that the petitioner is a convicted person. 23. With the aforesaid observations, the instant petition stands allowed. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Shivam-Puneet/34