IN REFERENCE Vs. VINOD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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:-

(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:

(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 clear and unambiguous in itself then no preamble can vary its meaning. [A.C.Sharma Versus Delhi Administration, 1973 AIR(SC) 913]