ORDER D.P. Untyal, J. - The learned Sessions Judge, Dehra Dun has made this reference recommending that the order made by the ADM (Executive) restoring one Kumari Jaiwanti to the custody of her uncle be quashed. 2. The facts, briefly stated, are these. On 2-2-1964 Kumari Jaiwanti, a minor girl, approached an officer designated as Rescue Officer and appointed under the provisions of the Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act, 1956 (hereinafter called the Act) and complained that she had been turned out by her uncle Indermani and expressed a desire for being kept in a Protective Home. On 3-2-1964 the Rescue Officer produced her before the, City Magistrate who recorded her statement on oath and ordered her to be detained in a Protective Home. Ram Kishore, son of Indermani, moved an application before the City Magistrate on 4-2-1964 alleging that she was his cousin sister and was a minor. He prayed that she was being unlawfully detained in the Protective Home and should be released. The City Magistrate ordered the medical examination of the girl and the doctor reported that she was between 16 and 17 years of age. Thereupon the application of Ram Kishore was forwarded by him to the District Magistrate for orders. The matter was finally put up before the Addl. Distt. Magistrate (Executive) on 4-3-1964 who directed the release of the girl from detention and ordered that she be restored to the custody of her uncle Indermani. 3. It appears that the State Government was dissatisfied with the order of the Addl. Distt. Magistrate and filed a revision in the court of the Sessions Judge who has made the above reference. 4. The learned Sessions Judge held that the order made by the Addl. Distt. Magistrate u/s 552 Code of Criminal Procedure was illegal as in his view the girl was neither in unlawful detention nor her detention for an unlawful purpose. In my opinion the learned judge overlooked the crucial point in the case. What he had to consider was whether the girl had bean legally detained in a Protective Home by order of the City Magistrate. Section 2(g) of the Act defines "Protective Home" as an institution in which women and girls may be kept in pursuance of the Act. In my opinion the learned judge overlooked the crucial point in the case. What he had to consider was whether the girl had bean legally detained in a Protective Home by order of the City Magistrate. Section 2(g) of the Act defines "Protective Home" as an institution in which women and girls may be kept in pursuance of the Act. Sub-section (1) of Section 19 lays down that a woman or girl who is carrying on or is being made to carry on prostitution may be kept in a Protective Home by order of a magistrate having territorial jurisdiction in this behalf. There was no evidence in the instant case that Kumari Jaiwanti was either carrying on or was being made to carry on prostitution by her uncle or any other person. All that had been said by her before the City Magistrate was that she was being III treated by her uncle and wanted to marry a person of her choice. The reasoning of the learned judge that she had come to the Protective Home of her own accord and that the Rescue Officer was of the opinion that she was in moral danger and needed protection particularly as she was a minor, even if accepted, would not justify her detention in a Protective Home. The report submitted by the Rescue Officer to the City Magistrate that the girl was in moral danger was an expression of his personal opinion. There was not an iota of legal evidence on the record to suggest that people of doubtful character had access to her while at the house of her uncle or that the environment in which her uncle lived was not conducive to good morals. If the City Magistrate thought that the allegations made against Indermani in the report of the Rescue Officer had any semblance of truth he should have summoned Indermani and examined him on oath and made proper inquiry into the circumstances in which the girl came to leave the house of her uncle. In the absence of any evidence that the girl was being made or encouraged to carry on prostitution by her uncle or by any other person, it was not open to the Magistrate to send her to a Protective Home as if she was a girl of immoral character. 5. In the absence of any evidence that the girl was being made or encouraged to carry on prostitution by her uncle or by any other person, it was not open to the Magistrate to send her to a Protective Home as if she was a girl of immoral character. 5. It would be atrocious if Magistrates were allowed to use their powers to detain minor girls in a Protective Home on the pretext of protecting them from going astray. If this proposition were accepted girls who are orphans and women who run away from their homes on account of domestic differences, might be detained in a Protective Home on the plea that there is a danger of their being seduced for immoral purposes. In my opinion it would be a gross abuse of the provisions of the Code to detain innocent persons who happen to be women in a Protective Home. I am firmly of the view that the detention of Kumari Jaiwanti in the Protective Home was unlawful. The detention was also for an unlawful purpose inasmuch as she was being deprived of the lawful guardianship of her uncle. The order passed by the Addl. Distt. Magistrate releasing her from the Protective Home and restoring her to the custody of her uncle Indermani was eminently proper and just and perfectly valid in law. 6. For the reasons given above I reject the reference and uphold the order of the Addl. Distt. Magistrate (Executive).