Advocates:
['SUSHIL KUMAR', '', 'MUKUL YADAV', 'G A']

Court No. - 91 ............................................ A.F.R.

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1399 of 2022

Revisionist :- Girish Kumar

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others

Counsel for Revisionist :- Sushil Kumar,Mukul Yadav

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon'ble Mrs. Jyotsna Sharma,J.

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