The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the term 'child' under the Commission for Protection of Child Right Act, 2005, and the trial of offences against children. The judgment also emphasizes the powers of the National and State Commissions for Protection of Child Rights and the role of the Children's Court in providing speedy trial of such offences.

JUDGMENT

Rakesh Saksena, J.

Sessions Judge, East-Nimar, Khandwa acting under section 395(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short the 'Code') has made this reference under the following circumstances:- Judicial Magistrate First Class, Harsud, East-Nimar, Khandwa has committed Criminal Case No.657/2011 to the Court of Session considering the case as one relating to offences against child in view (2) Cr.Ref.No.1/2012 of the Government of Madhya Pradesh Gazette Notification No. FA 17(E)/38/2010/21-B(One) dated 7th January, 2011 made in exercise of its power conferred under section 25 of the “Commission for Protection of Child Right Act, 2005” ( for short the 'Act'). Learned Magistrate in committal order has stated that since the offences under sections 279, 337, 338, 427 of the Indian Penal Code and section 3/181 of the Motor Vehicles Act were committed against the complainant who was of 16 years of age 'i.e. a Child', these offences ought to have been tried by the Sessions Court which was specified as Children's Court for the purpose of speedy trial of the offences against the children. Observing that the 'Act' is silent on various important points relating to the trial of offences against child as well as the matters relating to violation of child rights, and a lot of confusion has been created as to what cases should be tried by the “Children's Court” and what exact procedure should be adopted in this respect, learned Sessions Judge has referred for our answer to the following questions:

1. First, what should be the meaning of expression 'child' which is not defined in the Act of 2005.

2. Secondly, whether each and every offence irrespective of its gravity and nature in which a child happens to be a complainant or victim either alone or with other persons who are not child has to be tried exclusively by the Children's Court, which is a Court of Sessions.

3. Thirdly, whether, the Children's Court can directly take cognizance in such matters or a committal order is required at the hands of the Magistrate.

4. Fourthly, what is the expense and scope of expressions 'Offence against Child' and 'Violation of Child Right's and what sort of trial or proceedings are required to be carried out in case or 'Violation of Child Rights' which are brought to the notice of the Children's Court.

2. Admittedly, the 'Act' neither, defines 'Child' nor the expression 'Offences against Children'. The Act, however, contemplates creation of National Commission as well as State Commission for Protection of Child Rights providing that the Commission shall inquire into violation of Child Rights and recommend initiation of proceedings in such cases. As far as violation of 'child Rights', section 2(b) of the Act defines expression 'child Rights' as under:

“2(b) “child rights” includes the children's rights adopted in the United Nations convention on the Rights of the Child on the 20th November, 1989 and ratified by the Government of India on the 11th December, 1992.”

3. Since the Act is silent on the point as up to what age a person would be deemed to be a child for the purpose of this Act, it is necessary for us to probe into statement of objects and reasons for introducing the Bill in the Legislature. No doubt statement of objects and reasons for introducing a Bill in the Legislature are ordinarily not admissible as an aid to the construction of the statute as enacted; far less can it control the meaning of the actual words used in the Act, but it can sometimes be referred to for the limited purpose of ascertaining the circumstances which actuated the sponsor of the Bill to introduce it and the purpose for doing so. The preamble of a statute which is often described as a key to the understanding of it may legitimately be consulted to solve an ambiguity or to ascertain and fix the meaning of words in their context which otherwise bear more meaning than one. It may afford useful assistance as to what the statute intends to reach, but if the enactment is