Provided that the Court of Session may entertain the appeal after the expiry of the said period of thirty days if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time.
(2) No appeal shall lie from—
(a) Any order of acquittal made by the Board in respect of a juvenile alleged to have committed an offence; or
(b) Any order made by a Committee in respect of a finding that a person is not a neglected juvenile.
(3) No second appeal shall lie from any order of the Court of Session passed in appeal under this section.
This section contains provisions relating to appeal against the order passed by the competent authority after inquiry and proceeding in respect of juvenile in conflict with law or the child. An appeal against such order shall lie to the Sessions Court and the time-limit prescribed under the section is thirty days from the date of order. This limit may, however, be extended if the Court finds that there was sufficient reason for delay in filing of the appeal by the appellant.
Any cause which is beyond the control of a person is generally accepted as a sufficient cause for justifying delay in filing the appeal under this section. These causes may be broadly stated as follows:—
(i) Death of a person;
(ii) The appellant being seriously ill;
(iii) Death or ailment of the counsel;
(iv) Failure of vehicle or mode of transport in journey;
(v) Any natural calamity;
Filing of the appeal in improper Court was held to be a sufficient cause for extending the time-limit for appeal in the case of Sunder Theatres v. Allahabad Bank, Jhansi.
The Bombay High Court in Ganesh v. Mithalal, held that the term ‘sufficient cause’ should be interpreted liberally with a view to providing opportunity of appeal to the appellant.
The decision of the Sessions Court which is the Appellate Court under this section (i.e., Section 52) in the case of a juvenile in conflict with law or child shall be final and there is no scope for further appeal against the order passed by the Sessions Court.
In Fahim v. State of Uttar Pradesh, in an appeal for grant of bail to juvenile under Section 50 of J.J. Act, 2000, the provisions of Section 12 relating grant of bail were referred by the Appellate Court but no finding was recorded and the bail was rejected.
The High Court of Allahabad set aside the impugned order on the ground that there was no finding recorded by any Court (i.e., trial as well as the Appellate Court) that release would likely bring the juvenile into association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger etc. The Court released the revision-petitioner on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties to the satisfaction of the Court concerned.
It may be noted that similar provisions relating to appeal in case of juvenile delinquents existed in Section 37 of the repealed Juvenile Justice Act, 1986.