SHILA BHALLA Vs. THAKAR BHAGWAN DASS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts giving rise to this Criminal revision are briefly as under: Shrimati shila Bhalla the petitioner in this case, was first married to one Babu Singh, proprietor of a pen manufacturing firm at Kanpur about 14 years back as a result of which they got one daughter named Saroj. Babu Singh died at Baroda about 11 years back. Three years thereafter Shrimati Sheela Bhalla married B. S Bhalla, proprietor of Bhalla Crockery Works, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. Through this wedlock they got two children, namely daughter Kiron aged about 6 years and son Dalip kumar aged about 4 years. The family was living in a portion of the premises no C 66, Defence Colony, New Delhi the proprietor of which was Shrimati Yashpda Bali whose son-in-law was Shri Mohan. It was alleged that Shri Mohan above-mentioned was an influential person and threatened the petitioner and her husband in this case to vacate the premises otherwise they would be implicated in some case. It is also alleged that Shri Sadhu ram, Station House Officer of Kotla moubarakpur, was a friend of Shri Mohan above-mentioned who also threatened shri Bhalla, husband of the petitioner, of dire consequences unless he along with his children left the premises. Shri Bhalla thereafter sent a telegram against the sub-Inspector to the higher officers and also approached them personally. Thereafter the police tried to manufacture a false case against Shri Bhalla and his wife Shrimati Sheela Bhalla alleging that they were using Saroj for prostitution. Accordingly a bogus customer was sent to the premises who paid some money to b. S. Bhalla who allowed him and his wife Shrimati Sheela Bhalla to go in another room for sexual intercourse but before they could perform the sexual act police raided the house and arrested the two namely B. S. Bhalla and his wife Shrimati sheela Bhalla under section 3|4 of the Suppression of the moral Traffic in Women and Girls Act, 1956. They also took Saroj under their custody. That case is still pending. At this Shrimati Sheela Bhalla above mentioned filed a write petition No. 13-D of 1962 under S. 491 of the Criminal P. C. and Art. 226 of the Constitution of India for issuing a writ of habease corpus for the production of Saroj in Court and for quashing the order of Shri Virender Parkash, Sub-Divisional Magistrate, New Delhi, who had sent her to Nari Naketan under S. 17 (2) of the Suppression of Immoral trafic in Woman and Giela Act, 1956. That writ petition came up before Tek Chand j. who vide his order dated 7th December, 1962, allowed the same and ordered this Saroj be released by the Superintended, Nari Naketan and handed over to the petitioner, her mother. It is then stated that on 11-7-1963 Shri S. P. Batura, special Police Officer, Delhi, appointed under the provision of the Suppression of immoral Traffic in Woman and Girls Act, 1956 applied under S. 14 of the Children shrimati Sheela Bhalla and B. S. Bhalla were neglected children who were living in brothel, that is with their parents, and there was every likelihood of the girls being forced for prostitution and the male child Dalip being spoiled in the atmosphere. He, therefore, prayed that an enquiry under S. 14 of the Children Act be conducted by the Board appointed for this purpose. On this application, the Board which was constituted of Shri Bhagwan Dass, Magistrate 1st Class, Delhi Shrimati kanta Jaishi Magistrate 1st Class, Delhi, and Shrimati Niro Bahen, passed the following order on 22-7-1963:-

(2.) THE first point raised by the petitioner's counsel was that the impugned order was passed only by Thakar Bhagwan Dass, who was the President of the Board, in the absence of the others. This argument was also raised in the Court of Session but was rightly rejected boy the learned Additional Sessions Judge after giving adequate reasons. It will therefore suffice to say here that the provisions of sub-s (2) of S. 6 of the Children Act are quite clear and the mere perusal of the same would show that the argument is devoid of force altogether. This sub-section runs as under:--" (2) A Board or Children's Court may cast not-withstanding the absence of any member of the Board or, as the case may be, any Magistrate of the Children's Court and no order made by the Board or Children's Court shall be invalid boy reason only of the absence of any member or magistrate, as the case may be, during any stage of the proceeding. '' it is clear therefore that to pass valid order under the Children Act it is not necessary that all the members of the Board should be present. The order in this case was passed by Thakar Bhagwan Dass, who was said to be the president of the Board. Moreover, this order was also supported by the other members when all of them signed the summons issued to the petitioners.

(3.) THE next point urged by the petitioner's counsel was that the order passed boy tek Chand J. on the 7th December, 1962, allowing the writ petition of the petitioner and releasing Saroj indicated that there was no incriminating evidence against the petitioner bout this argument also is devoid of force because the writ was allowed only on technical grounds as certain statutory provisions, which were mandatory, were not complied with. A part from that the learned Judge specifically stated therein while allowing the write petition that he was induced to pass the order on finding that the requirements of Ss. 16 and 17 (2) of the Suppression of immoral Traffic in Woman and Girls Act had not been complied with and that any thing stated in that order did not prevent taking subsequent action under that provision if the requirements of the law were satisfied.