(2) The inquiry under this section shall be completed within four months of the receipt of the order or within such shorter period as may be fixed by the Committee:
Provided that the time for the submission of the inquiry report may be extended by such period as the Committee may, having regarded to the circumstances and for the reasons recorded in writing, determine.
[(3) The State Government shall review the pendency of cases of the Committee at every six months, and shall direct the Committee to increase the frequency of its sittings or may cause the constitution or additional Committees.
(4) After the completion of the inquiry, if, the Committee is of the opinion that the said child has no family or ostensible support or is in continued need of care and protection, it may allow the child to remain in the children’s home or shelter home till suitable rehabilitation is found for him or till he attains the age of eighteen years.]
When a report under Section 32 of the Act about a child is received by the Child Welfare Committee, then the Committee or a police officer or special juvenile police unit or the designated police officer shall hold an inquiry in the prescribed manner and the committee on its own or on report from any person or agency as mentioned in Section 32 (1), may pass an order to send the child to the Children’s Home for speedy inquiry by a social worker or a child welfare officer.
The inquiry by such social worker or the child welfare officer, as the case may be, has to be completed within four months of the receipt of the order. The Committee may even fix a shorter period for completion of such inquiry under sub-section (2) of this section where the inquiry could not be completed within the period of four months, the reason therefore have got to be recorded in writing. Then only, the period may be extended further.
Where on the basis of the inquiry it is found that the child has no family or any ostensible support, the Committee may allow the child to remain in Children’s Home or Shelter Home till suitable arrangement for rehabilitation is found or made for him or till he attains the age of eighteen years.
In Sanjiv v. State of U.P., the applicant juvenile, as a result of inquiry was found to be a juvenile in conflict with law. The High Court, therefore, remanded the case back to the trial court with the direction that the court should examine the relevant evidence and pass appropriate orders.