LAWS(GJH)-1969-8-3

STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. FULSINH BHIMSINH

Decided On August 26, 1969
STATE OF GUJARAT Appellant
V/S
FULSINH BHIMSINH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a reference made by the learned Sessions Judge Ahmedabad Rural at Himatnagar recommending that the order of committing the accused for sever offences under the Indian Penal Code and for offences punishable under secs. 5 and 6 of the Child Marriage Restraint Act. 1929 (which will be hereinafter referred to as the Act) passed-by the Judicial Magistrate First Class Idar in Criminal Case No. 1170 of 1968 so far as it relates to offences punishable under secs. 5 and 6 of the Act be quashed. It is so recommended on the ground that the Court of Sessions has no jurisdiction to try the accused for the said offences but only a Magistrate of the First Class has got jurisdiction to try the accused for the said offences. It is further recommended that the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Idar be directed to proceed further with the trial of the accused for the offences punishable under secs. 5 and 6 of the Act according to law.

(2.) The facts leading rise to this reference briefly stated are as under:- The prosecution case is that accused Nos. 1 and 2 kidnapped one girl Bai Vada daughter of Bhikhsingh Kalusingh with intent that she might be compelled to marry against her wi11 or in order that she might be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse and that accused Nos. 3 to 8 abetted the commission of the said offence and further accused No. 3 married Bai Vada aged below 16 years and thereby committed an offence punishable under sec. S of the Act the other accused failed to prevent the said marriage being performed and thereby committed an offence punishable under sec. 6 of the Act. Bai Vadas father lodged a complaint at Vadali Police Station. After the necessary investigation a charge-sheet was sent by the police against all eight accused for the offences punishable under secs. 366-362-376 read with secs. 511 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and also under secs. 5 and 6 of the Act. The Judicial Magistrate First Class Idar after making a preliminary inquiry committed the accused to the Court of Sessions to stand their trial.

(3.) When the Sessions case came for hearing before the learned Additional Sessions Judge Ahmedabad (Rural) at Himatnagar the order of committal came to be challenged. The learned Additional Sessions Judge found that in view of the provisions of sec. 8 of the Act and sec. 29(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code the Court of Sessions had no jurisdiction to try the accused for the offences punishable under secs. 5 and 6 of the Act.