JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Mukul Yadav, learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. This revision has been filed challenging the order dated 11.01.2022 passed by the Child Welfare Committee, Kasganj and further challenging the order dated 26.10.2022 passed by the Special Judge (POCSO Act) in Criminal Appeal No.7 of 2022 in a matter arising out of Case Crime No.140 of 2022, under sections-363, 366, 376 I.P.C., Police Station-Sunngarh, District- Kasganj.

3. The relevant facts giving rise to this revision are as below :-

An F.I.R. was lodged by father of the victim alleging abduction of his daughter; the victim was recovered and was directed to be produced before the Child Welfare Committee; the Child Welfare Committee passed an order dated 11.01.2022 simultaneously rejecting four applications, one moved on behalf of mother of the victim and second moved on behalf of the married sister of the victim namely Islanti and two applications moved by the victim herself. The facts and circumstances of the case as put before the Child Welfare Committee indicated that the victim became pregnant with the child of her jeeja Om Pal, husband of her real sister Islanti. It may be noted that one of the applicant was Islanti, wife of Om Pal; the girl was married of to one Ghanshyam by her parents; she did not stay with her husband; instead went with her jeeja and her real sister where she got pregnant; the Child Welfare Committee observed that there were two applications from the side of victim herself, one expressing willingness to go with her parents and the other expressing willingness to go with her sister and jeeja. Taking all the circumstances into consideration, the Child Welfare Committee, found it fit to detain her in the Rajkiya Balgrih Swaroopnagar, Kanpur by order dated 11.01.2022.

4. The appeal preferred by her father against the above order was dismissed, inter-alia on the assumption that legally appeal could have been filed before the District Magistrate only and that the children court had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

5. Section- 101 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 is as below :-

"(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, any person aggrieved by an order made by the Committee or the Board under this Act may, within thirty days from the date of such order, prefer an appeal to the "Children's Court", except for decisions by the Committee related to Foster Care and Sponsorship After Care for which the appeal shall lie with the District Magistrate."

6. It is quite clear from this provision of law that appeal shall lie to the District Magistrate with respect to decisions by the Child Welfare Committee relating to foster care and sponsorship after care only. The appeal in respect of other orders passed by the Child Welfare Committee shall lie to the 'Children's Court' within 30 days from the date of order. Before analysing this provision, it will be appropriate to peruse the order passed by the Child Welfare Committee to decide upon whether this order falls in the category where the appeal may lie to Children's Court or in the category where appeal shall lie to District Magistrate.

7. Following facts are not disputed that the victim girl was produced before the Child Welfare Committee in pursuance of an order passed by Judicial Magistrate, Kasganj in a case arising out of a matter in Case Crime No.140 of 2021, under sections-363, 366, 376 I.P.C., Police Station-Sunngarh, District- Kasganj.

8. From perusal of the impugned order, it seems that the victim was put to counselling by the Child Welfare Committee and she gave a statement that she was married of to one Ghanshyam against her wishes by her father in July, 2021; she did not like him therefore, she returned to her parents place; meanwhile, she developed illicit relations with her jeeja Om Pal and eloped with him to a place in Punjab where she stayed with him for 15 days and also called her sister and all the three lived together peacefully; she became preg