1. The order complained of in this case must be set aside on the ground that the learned Additional Sessions Judge had no jurisdiction to make an order of that description. We entirely disagree with the view expressed by the Judge in the order mentioned above, namely that the tentative nature of a verdict by a jury before whom the trial was held, does not take away the jurisdiction of the Court to pass an order relating to the custody of a minor. According to the Judge, the power to make such an order was inherent in all Courts which tried oases in which minors were concerned, although it is not clearly defined in the Criminal Procedure Code; and the Code, according to the Judge regulates procedure up to the conclusion of a trial, and not beyond it ; and any order passed in regard to the custody of a minor is based on the inherent power above-mentioned. In the case before us after having accepted the majority verdict of the jurors, the Judge recorded this order in the exercise of his inherent jurisdiction, relating to the custody of the girl, with reference to whom offences under Sections 366, 376, 372, 373, 344 and 366-A, I. P. C, were alleged to have been committed by two persons placed on their trial before the Court of Session:
The jury returned a divided verdict. Three of them held both the accused not guilty by giving them the benefit of doubt. Two of them held them guilty on all the sections. It is desirable that the girl should be kept in some Refuge or Home till the legality of her marriage either with Kher Singh or Pakhar Singh is established in a civil Court. The acquittal of this accused is not conclusive on this point specially as the majority of the jury merely give the accused the benefit of doubt. She is big with child and will probably be delivered of a child in a month or two. It is necessary that she should be kept in an atmosphere which is free from the scramblings of rival claimants. Write to the 'Abala Asram,' 'The Refuge' and 'The Nari Kalyan Asram' asking them if they are prepared to keep the girl in their custody free of cost till the civil suit which either party has expressed a desire to file is disposed of. Kher Singh is directed to produce the girl on 19th May 1934 in this Court for final orders for the disposal of this girl.
2. Kher Singh, mentioned in the order, was the complainant in the case tried by the Judge and a jury. The order complained of in the application on which this Rule was granted, related to the above direction given by the Judge in the matter of production of the girl on 19th May 1934, before the Court, for final orders for the disposal of the girl. As indicated above, we do not find any justification either in law or in practice founded upon inherent powers of Courts for such a direction after the trial was over; and the order made by the Judge appears to us to be wholly without jurisdiction. The Rule is made absolute. The order complained of is set aside.