JUDGMENT :

M. K. THAKKER, J.

1. The present application is filed challenging the show cause notice dated 15.04.2023 issued by the learned Special Court (GUJCTOC), Rajkot under section 17 of the GUJCTOC (hereinafter referred to the “Act”) whereby, the present applicant was called to explain that why proceedings under The Contempt of Courts Act shall not be initiated and the reference regarding the same shall not be made to the High Court. For providing such explanation, she was called on 05.05.2023 at 11:00 am.

2. It is the case of the present applicant that:

2.1. The applicant is the daughter of one accused namely Jayesh Ranparia who is in jail since 15.03.2021 at Bell Bellmarsh Prison, United Kingdom. The Government of India has filed extradition case against him. It is further case of the applicant that the applicant is a school going child having age around 15 years and also involved in all co-curricular activities such as journalism and new reporting as her mother has been a News Editor for newspaper which is circulated by the name of Navanagar Times. She has been involved in micro- journalism to bring awareness among the people and has published informative pamphlets by the name of “Dhandhero” wherein, applicant used to cover news related to Jamnagar city and circulated among police station, government offices and certain area of general public. The applicant has published 5 editions of Dhandhero on 05.10.2022, 02.11.2022, 19.03.2023 and 05.05.2023.

2.2. The applicant has received notice from the Special Court, Rajkot alleging the violation of section 17 of Act claiming that the applicant has disclosed the names of secret witnesses by way of pamphlets which is distributed under the name of Dhandhero. Challenging the said notice, the present application is filed.

3. Heard learned advocate Mr.Prashantkumar Sharma applicant and learned Public Prosecutor Mr.Hardik Dave with learned APP Mr.Ronak Raval for the respondent-State.

3.1. It is submitted by learned advocate Mr.Prashantkumar Sharma, for the applicant, that the applicant is neither an accused nor a witness of a case was not having the knowledge about the details of the case as well as details of the witnesses. In the charge- sheet, which is filed against the father, under the Act the names of secret witnesses are already striken with black ink and there was no possibility for the applicant to know the names of the witnesses. It is submitted by learned advocate Mr.Prashantkumar Sharma that the 15 year old child would not be able to hack through entire legal system and find out the names of secret witnesses. It is submitted that all the pamphlets distributed were merely independent news publication carried out by the resources of the applicant. The news article laid downs the information regarding the crematoriums at Jamnagar. The grandmother of the applicant has also filed PIL being WPIL No.71 of 2022 wherein, this Court has issued notice with direction to file reply to the concerned parties. It is submitted by learned advocate Mr.Prashantkumar Sharma that even otherwise also the application which is filed under section 17 of the Act can only be filed by witness or the public prosecutor and no one else. The police Superintendent has filed the application without any powers and spelling out the names of the secret witnesses. It is submitted by learned advocate Mr.Prashantkumar Sharma that there is someone from the prosecution itself who is leaking out the names of the secret witnesses as a 14 year old minor girl cannot have enough resources to do so.

3.2. It is submitted that the 14 year old child was called by the learned Special Court, who is conducting the serious offence of this Act without keeping in mind that the applicant is a juvenile and under the Juvenile Justice Act, she cannot be called by any Court except Juvenile Court. It is submitted by learned advocate Mr.Prashantkumar Sharma that considering the above aspect, the notice which is issued to the applicant requires