JUDGMENT

Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant, J. - This appeal has been preferred by appellant against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 16.4.2013, passed by the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No.72/2010, convicting the appellant under Section 372 & 201 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'the IPC') and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for 05 years & fine of Rs.500/- and R.I. for 03 years & fine of Rs.500/- with default stipulations, respectively.

2. Case of prosecution, in brief, is this that complainant Yogeshwar Rao Gote (P.W.-8) received information that the appellant, who is Director of Gurukul Ashram, Nandanvan, is illegally trading children in Ashram. He gave intimation to Ruchir Garg (P.W.-17). Thereafter a sting operation was planned and a team was constituted. In the afternoon of 02.03.2010 these witnesses approached the appellant in Ashram and discussed about getting a child of one month. Appellant very clearly made a demand of Rs.2,50,000/-, whereupon Ruchir Garg (P.W.-17) issued a cheque in favour of appellant of Rs.2,50,000/- drawn on account maintained by him in I.C.I.C.I. Bank. On receipt of cheque, appellant handed-over a female child, who was admitted in the Medical College Hospital at Raipur for care and treatment. Thereafter complainant lodged complaint in Police Station, Urla based on which F.I.R. (Ex.P-9) was registered against the appellant, the investigation was taken-up and after completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was filed.

3. The appellant was charged with offence under Sections 372 & 201 of IPC. He denied charges and prayed for trial. The prosecution in support of its case examined 21 witnesses in all. Statement of appellant was recorded under section 313 of Cr.P.C., in which he denied all the incriminating evidence appearing against him in the prosecution case and pleaded innocence and false implication. He examined three witnesses in his defence. After completion of trial, the appellant stands convicted and sentenced in the manner as mentioned hereinabove.

4. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant, that appellant has been erroneously convicted without there being any support of prosecution witnesses. The fact is this that the appellant was running an orphanage and on the request of needy childless parents, the orphan children were given on adoption. The appellant is not involved in illegal trading of children. It was a donation that he had received from Ruchir Garg (P.W.-17) regarding which there are admissions of witnesses, therefore, no case is made out under Section 372 of I.P.C. The appellant is engaged in social service by giving support to helpless children. Therefore, it is prayed that appeal be allowed and appellant be acquitted of all the charges. Reliance has been placed on judgment of Singh Bench of Karnataka High Court, Thimmappa @ Channaraju and Kumara Vs. The State of Karnataka, (2010) CriLJ 2695 .

5. Counsel for the State opposes the appeal and submits that as per evidence available in record of the trial Court, it is a complete case of trading of child and there is no evidence to show that it was a case of adoption. Therefore, it is clearly a case of child trafficking. The appellant is running a registered society and therefore it cannot be said that he was unaware of the provisions of Section 41 of Juvenile Justice Act and CARA rules. Apart from that the appellant had received a self cheque and not in the name of the Ashram, which also shows his malafide intentions. On the basis of evidence present, it is apparent that present is a clear case of procurement of female child for illegal purposes. Therefore, no case is made out for acquittal of appellant.

6. In reply, it is submitted by the learned counsel for appellant that it is not a case of illegal procurement of child. A letter was given by father of child to appellant about handing over of child willingly for the reason