ORDER J.G. Chitre, J. 1. All these matters are being decided by this common order because they revolve around similar points which are being adjudicated by this order. 2. Criminal Revision No. 192 of 1996 has been preferred by Dhannobai widow of late Ramratan Sansi r/o village Gulkhedi, P.S. Pachor, tahsil Narsinghgarh, District Rajgarh, M.P. challenging the order which has been passed by Sessions Judge, Rajgarh (Biora) in the matter of Sessions Trial No. 68/96 (State of M.P. v. Kanhaiyalal & 8 others) where in the Sessions Judge passed an order holding that he does not have the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint which initiated a prosecution against Kanhaiyalal and 8 others in view of provisions of Sections 363, 366, 368, 372 and 373 of Indian Penal Code. The Sessions Judge by that order returned the complaint directing the prosecution to file it in the Court having jurisdiction. Virtually by that order the learned Sessions Judge did not take cognizance of the complaint which was the result of F.I.R. lodged by Dhannobai against Kanhaiyalal and 8 others. The learned Sessions Judge held that the allegations made by Dhannobai against Kanhaiyalal and others (who are opponents in the present revision petitions and misc. criminal cases) are pertaining to acts of using girl Reena alias Vandana at Bombay for immoral purpose. By that order the learned Sessions Judge held that no acts in context with offences punishable under provisions of Sections 363, 366, 368, 372 and 373 of I.P.C. took place within the territorial jurisdiction of Sessions Court Rajgarh (Biora). That order is being challenged by Dhannobai as well as State of M.P. as incorrect, improper and illegal. S.D.M. Rajgarh (Biora) had ordered that custody of Reena be handed over to Baijantibai. That order is being assailed by Dhannobai and State of M.P. by M. Cr. Cs. 3. Shri S.P. Sharma with Shri Seth Hawes Advocate appear for Dhannobai, Shri Girish Desai, Government Advocate assisted by Shri S.H. Sen, Deptey Government Advocate appear for the State. Shri H.S. Oberoi appear for opponent Sunitabai, Ranu w/o Farukh Khan, Nasiruddin, Manu alias Puja, Kishnabai alias Anitabai, Sultanali, Baijantibai, Jeetmal alias Jeetu, assisted by Shri Amitabh Upadhyaya and Shri Manoj Soni. Shri Jaisingh assisted by Shri A.K. Yadav appear for opponent no. 1 Kanhaiyalal s/o Kishanlal. Shri H.S. Oberoi appear for opponent Sunitabai, Ranu w/o Farukh Khan, Nasiruddin, Manu alias Puja, Kishnabai alias Anitabai, Sultanali, Baijantibai, Jeetmal alias Jeetu, assisted by Shri Amitabh Upadhyaya and Shri Manoj Soni. Shri Jaisingh assisted by Shri A.K. Yadav appear for opponent no. 1 Kanhaiyalal s/o Kishanlal. Shri V. S. Chhabra also put the appearance for all the opponents right from initial stage so far as these matters are concerned. 4. Few facts need to be stated for the purpose of unfolding the controversy created by counter claims which revolve around a girl who happens to be having the name as Reena alias Vandana. Dhannobai claims that she is her daughter and same sort of claim is made by opponent Baijantibai. It is still to be decided as to who is the real mother of said Reena alias Vandana. It is the allegation of Dhannobai in her F.I.R. which initiated a prosecution against Kanhaiyalal and 8 others mentioned above in respect of commission of offences punishable under provisions of Sections 363, 366, 368, 372 and 373 of I.P.C. that though her daughter Reena alias Vandana was kept in the custody of opponent Kanhaiyalal in the year 1989 or so with a specific instruction to him that said Reena should not be removed from village Kadia which is situated in the local limits of Pachor police station of Rajgarh District, by she was taken to Bombay Kanhaiyalal and Baijantibai. Reena was so handed over in the custody of Kanhaiyalal by Dhannobai as Dhannobai had promised that she would be marrying said Reena to Mahesh son of Kanhaiyalal. It appears from the investigation done so far by officers of Pachor police station that Dhannobai was indebted to Kanhaiyalal for a sum of rupees 5000/- or so and Dhannobai was unable to repay that amount to him and., therefore, Dhannobai had promised Kanhaiyalal that she would not be accepting dowry from him at the time of marriage of Reena with Mahesh s/o Kanhaiyalal. (It has been informed during the course of arguments that there is a custom prevalent in Sansi community that bridegroom has to offer dowry to the parents of bride before or at the time of marriage.) 5. It happens to be the allegation of Dhannobai that inspite of specific insturction given to Kanhaiyalal not to remove Reena from village Kadia, he handed over Reena to his sister Baijantibai, opponent no. It happens to be the allegation of Dhannobai that inspite of specific insturction given to Kanhaiyalal not to remove Reena from village Kadia, he handed over Reena to his sister Baijantibai, opponent no. 8 and permitted her to take her to Bombay for using her for immoral purposes. It is the allegation of Dhannobai that Baijantibai and other opponents mentioned above are using Reena for prostitution at Bombay with the help of some agents. During the investigation it has been disclosed that said Reena was used for the purpose of prostitution by sending her to various places including Dubai and Bahrin. When the purse of Reena was searched, as it has been disclosed by investigation done so far, some chits were found mentioning some telephone numbers and the information that Rs. 400/- or 800/-were paid "for night". A telephone number of Poona city has also been mentioned in these chits including other numbers. It has been disclosed during the course of investigation that Reena has been kept by Baijantibai at Bombay in Antop Hill area and some other suburbs of Bombay, even by changing the fiats. 6. A writ petition was filed in this High Court which was heard at Jabalpur main seat in which Dhannobai had prayed for a writ of Habeas Courpus. The record shows that during the hearing of that writ petition Reena was produced in the Court after sufficient efforts. It appears that after the writ petition was decided and in view of the decision of that writ petition, investigation proceeded in contest with F.I.R. lodged by Dhannobai. 7. Thereafter a proceeding started before S.D.M., Rajgarh and during the hearing of that proceeding Reena was produced before S.D.M. and thereafter she was sent to Nari Niketan, Jabalpur. She stayed there and after conclusion of the said proceeding S.D.M. Rajgarh passed the order handing over custody of Reena to Baijantibai. That order was challenged by the State by filing revision petition before Sessions Court, Rajgarh. The Sessions Court, Rajgarh dismissed the revision petition of the State by holding that in view of the order which has been passed by him holding that Sessions Court, Rajgarh does not have any jurisdiction, the proceedings before the S.D.M. Rajgarh becomes infructuous. That order is being assailed by the State and Dhannobai by the miscellaneous criminal cases mentioned above. 8. That order is being assailed by the State and Dhannobai by the miscellaneous criminal cases mentioned above. 8. The first point which is to be decided is whether girl Reena is below the age of 18 years or whether she is above 18 years of age. Shri Oberoi and Shri Jaisingh have argued that age of Reena should be treated to be more than 18 years because she has stated so before the police during the course of investigation and in view of the opinion given by the medical officers who had examined her for the purpose of ascertaining her age and who have opined that on the date of her medical examination (2.4.96) Reena was of the age of 16 1/2 years, six months or either side. Both of them have argued that the fusion of bones is depending on many factors like heriditory, diatetic and, climatic factors. They argued that on account of these factors, the fusion of bones might have been delayed in the case of Reena. Shri S.P. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for Dhannobai and Shri G. Desai, Govt. Advocate appearing for the State argued that the age of Reena is positively below 18 years because the medical officers who examined her for ascertaining her age had opined that on the date of said medical examination Reena was 16 1/2 years of age, 6 months on either side. Shri Sharma further argued that there has been a certificate issued by Surpunch of village Gulkhedi certifying that Reena happens to be of 16 years of age. An opportunity was given to applicant Dhannobai and her Advocate to produce more specific material for the purpose of determining the exact age of Reena. Such opportunity was also granted to all the opponents. The State was also directed to ascertain veracity of the certificate of Surpunch, Gulkhedi. Inspite of keen efforts of Shri Desai he did not get proper response from concerned officers and Shri Desai was unable to produce any material in respect of the correct age of Reena. 9. I do not attach any importance to the statement of Reena explaining her age because her statement during the course of investigation shows that she was not even knowing anything about her parents who gave birth to her. The record does not show that she has been sufficiently educated. 9. I do not attach any importance to the statement of Reena explaining her age because her statement during the course of investigation shows that she was not even knowing anything about her parents who gave birth to her. The record does not show that she has been sufficiently educated. Therefore, at this stage I give importance to the medical opinion expressed by Dr. Sathpati, Head of the Department of Forensic Science, Bhopal who opined that on 2.4.96 the age of Reena was 16 1/2 years, plus minus six months. At this stage it is pertinent to note that when some questions were asked to Reena for the purpose of ascertaining her desire so far as claims of both Dhannobai and Baijantibai are concerned in respect of custody, Reena had stated that she wanted to go to Baijantibai. Thereafter when Reena was again produced before this Court, she stated that she wanted to get released from Nari Sudhar Grah as early as possible. She had also stated that she does "dancing" with Baijantibai and her female family members. 10. Thus, considering the material on record, I come to the conclusion at this stage that, on 2.4.96 Reena may be of 17 years of age, giving addition of six months in her favour as she has desired to be released from Nari Sudhar Grah. I hold that on the above date she is 17 years of age because it is always proper to give leaning scale to the desire of a minor also, who is the subject-matter of controversy and verdict. 11. Shri Oberoi and Shri Jaisingh argued that Reena is a girl of such an age which makes her to take proper decision about her welfare. 11. Shri Oberoi and Shri Jaisingh argued that Reena is a girl of such an age which makes her to take proper decision about her welfare. Both of them placed reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court in the matter of S. Varadarajan v. State of Madras ( AIR 1965 S.C. 942 ) wherein the Supreme Court observed "but when the girl (who though a minor had attained the age of discretion and is on the verge of attaining majority and is a senior college student) from the house of the relative of the father where she is kept, herself telephones the accused to meet her at a certain place, and goes there to meet him and finding him waiting with his car gets into that car of her own accord, and the accused take her to various places and ultimately to the Sub-Registrar's office where they get an agreementto marry registered, and there is no suggestion that this was done by force or blandishment or anything like that on the part of the accused, but it is clear from the evidence that the insistence of marriage came from her side, the accused by complying with her wishes can by no stretch of imagination be said to have taken her out of the keeping of her lawful guardianship, i. e. the father. 12. Shri Jaisingh placed reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court in the matter of Shyam and another v. State of Maharashtra (1995 S.C.C. (Cri.) 851) and argued that in that case the Supreme Court has considered the age of discretion of a girl who had not touched the age of 18 years. By placing reliance on some observations of the Supreme Court in that case, Shri Jaisingh submitted that Reena had attained the age of discretion. Both the Oberoi and Shri Jaisingh argued that Reena attened the age of discretion and is capable of taking proper decision for her residence and her future course of life. They argued that keeping this aspect of the matter, Reena be released in view of her wish. 13. Both the Oberoi and Shri Jaisingh argued that Reena attened the age of discretion and is capable of taking proper decision for her residence and her future course of life. They argued that keeping this aspect of the matter, Reena be released in view of her wish. 13. Shri Desai submitted that Reena had not attained the age of discretion and she is not able to take proper decision for her future course of life as she happens to be a minor girl and, therefore, she needs to be kept in secured place so as to protect her from her sexual exploitation. 14. I do not agree with the submission advanced by Shri Oberoi and Shri Jaisingh. However, I agree with the submission advanced by Shri Desai for the State. The prosecutrix in S. Varadrajan's case (supra) was a senior college going girl and was from a sophesticated strata of the society. Here Reena is a gril coming from Sansi community, known to be a nomadic tribe and far away from sophesticated atmosphere. There is nothing on record to show that Reena had ever taken education, leave aside the education which prosecutrix in S. Varadrajan's case (supra) had. Reena is a village girl, may be residing in Bombay for some days. She is a girl born in the community which can be said to be down-trodden community. Reena is not even knowing anything about her parents who gave her birth. The investigation shows that Dhannobai had given her in the custody of Kanhaiyalal when she was a child. (This act of Dhannobai itself speaks as to how such girls are brought-up in Sansi community). Reena is definitely unable to take proper decision in respect of her future course of life at this stage, in view of her age and uneducatedness. 15. The investigation done shows that Reena was handed over to Baijantibai by her brother Kanhaiyalal. It further shows that she was handed over to Kanhaiyalal by Dhannobai as Dhannobai was unable to repay a loan of Rs. 5000/- or so which she had taken from kanhaiyalal. At that time Dhannobai had instructed Kanhaiyalal that Reena should not be oved away from Village Kadia. It further shows that she was handed over to Kanhaiyalal by Dhannobai as Dhannobai was unable to repay a loan of Rs. 5000/- or so which she had taken from kanhaiyalal. At that time Dhannobai had instructed Kanhaiyalal that Reena should not be oved away from Village Kadia. Shri S.P. Sharma and Shri Desai had argued that when the guardian so hands over the custody of a minor to his relative with a specific instruction of not moving such minor out of a particular area and if that relative or anybody takes such minor away from such temporary custody of the relative, such person who takes away such minor commits an offence of kidnapping. 16. Shri Oberoi and Shri Jaisingh argued that there is no kidnapping indicated by the investigation done so far and therefore, the learned Sessions Judge was right in coming to the conclusion that he had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the prosecution initiated at the instance of F.I.R. lodged by Dhannobai. Both of them have argued that the allegations which the prosecution is leveling against the opponents are in respect of the acts done at Bombay and are not pertaining to jurisdiction of the Court of Session at Rajgarh. 17. Section 361 of Indian Penal Code provides that whoever takes or entices any minor under sixteen years of age if a male, or under eighteen years of age if a female, or any person of unsound mind, out of the keeping of the lawful guardian of such minor or person of unsound mind, without the consent of such guardian, is said to kidnap such minor or person from lawful guardianship. The Explanation to this section provides that the words "lawful guardian" in this section include any person lawfully entrusted with the care of custody of such minor or other person. Exception to the section indicates that this section (361) does not extend to the act of any person who in good faith believes himself to be the father of an illegitimate child, or who in good faith believes himself to be entitled to the lawful custody of such child, unless such act is committed for an immoral or unlawful purpose. 18. Both Shri Oberoi and Shri Jaisingh had argued that there is no material to show that the opponents "enticed" Reena. 18. Both Shri Oberoi and Shri Jaisingh had argued that there is no material to show that the opponents "enticed" Reena. Chambers 20th Century Dictionary provides the meaning of "entice" as 'to induce by exciting hope or desire; to tempt; to lead astray. Meaning of the word "entice" has been given in Webster's New World Dictionary, Encyclopedic Edition as 'to set afire'; hence excite;' 'to attract by offering hope of reward or pleasure;' tempt allure'. The investigation done so far prima facie indicates that Reena has been allured by the attraction of pleasure of city life. The investigation done so far prima facie also indicates that she had been physicall, taken away from Village Kadia to Bombay by Baijantibai. In S. Varadrajan's c(sic) (Surpa) Supreme Court has held that "even where the minor girl is kept by her father at the house of his relative, she still continues to be in the lawful guardianship of the former." In this case, as investagion indicates, Dhannobai had kept Reena with opponent Kanhaiyalal with a promise to marry her with Mahesh, son of Kanhaiyalal. It is pertinent to note that at that time she had told him not to move Reena out of village Kadia. Thus, unless contrary is proved, Reena was in the custody of Dhannobai, her guardian so far, as the investigation shows. Thus prima facie case has been made out for the offences indicated by provisions of Sections 361 and 363 of I.P.C. so far as "taking" or "enticing" Reena from Village Kadia, is concerned. Village Kadia is undoubtedly within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court of Sessions Rajgarh. In view of this, the Court of Sessions Rajgarh has the jurisdiction to entertain the said prosecution in its Court so far as offences which are indicated by provisions of Sections 361 and 363 of I.P.C. are concerned. 19. The statement recorded during the course of investigation show that investigating officer or officers have recorded the statements of Reena, Ramprasad s/o Chatru Patel, Nirmal s/o Yashwant, Radheshyam s/o Atmaram, Kanchanbai W/o Doongarsingh, Dayaram, Rajendra s/o Dayaram, Mishrilal s/o Phoolsing which support the prosecution allegation in respect of entrustment of Reena with kanhaiyalal by Dhannobai and the act on the part of Kanhaiyalal and Baijantibai taking her away to Bombay from village Kadia. The investigation officers have recorded the statements of M.H. Shinde, Smt. Beena Singh w/o Kamal Singh, Smt. Basanti Thakur w/o Sultanali, Pandurang Ganpati, Mohan Shinde, Ramesh Yadav, G.A. Farnandis, Shantibai w/o Dinesh Goel, Pinky alias Chanchal w/o Mukesh which prima facie show that Baijantibai, Sultanali kept Reena in Bombay in a flat. The statements of these witnesses prima facie show that Baijantibai. Sunitabai, Sultanali, Jeetmal were making her to dance and making her available for sexual exploitation. 20. Section 366 of I.P.C. provides that whoever kidnaps or abducts any woman with intent that she may be compelled, or knowing it to be likely that she will be compelled, to marry any person against her will, or in order that she may be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse, shall be punished with imprisonment etc. Here prima facie, Reena is a minor. Taking into consideration the statements of these witnesses, a prima facie case has been made out so far as Section 366 of I.P.C. is concerned. All these acts prima facie have taken place within the territorial jurisdiction of Sessions Court Rajgarh and, therefore, learned Sessions Judge Rajgarh has committed that the error of coming to the conclusion that Sessions Court Rajgarh does not have jurisdiction to entertain the prosecution initiated on the F.I.R. lodged by Dhannobai that order needs to be set aside keeping in view of the material which has been brought before this Court by investigating agency. The Sessions Judge, Rajgarh shall take the cognizance of the prosecution initiated against the opponents on account of F.I.R. lodged by Dhannobai in respect of offences atleast indicated by provisions of Section 363 and 366 of I.P.C. 21. When the statements of above mentioned persons recorded during the course of investigation done by the investigating agency were before the learned S.D.M. Rajgarh, the medical certificate of Dr. Sathpati, H. O. D. Forensic Science Department, Bhopal was before the learned - S.D.M., it was totally improper for him to come to a conclusion that Reena needs to be handed over in custody of Baijantibai. The learned S.D.M. should have concluded that Reena was a girl below the age of 18 years. Sathpati, H. O. D. Forensic Science Department, Bhopal was before the learned - S.D.M., it was totally improper for him to come to a conclusion that Reena needs to be handed over in custody of Baijantibai. The learned S.D.M. should have concluded that Reena was a girl below the age of 18 years. The learned S.D.M. should have also taken into consideration the statements of above mentioned witnesses recorded by the investigating agency during the course of investigation which prima facie were indicating that Reena is being subjected to sexual exploitation or is likely to be exposed to sexual exploitation. The learned S.D.M. has lost sight of the chits which were found in the purse of Reena indicating some telephone numbers. The learned S.D.M. also lost sight of the material collected during the investigation showing that Reena was taken to Dubai and Bahrin and was lodged in a hotel for sufficiently long time. When that was the material before him it was totally improper for the learned S.D.M. to hand over Reena to the custody of Baijantibai. 22. Thus, I come to the conclusion that the order of S.D.M. Rajgarh handing over the custody of Reena to Baijantibai is, therefore, bad in law which needs to be set aside and thus stands set aside. 23. When the Court has to decide about the custody of such a girl who is not educated, not capable of taking appropriate decision for her welfare or future course of life, the Court has to be very cautious. The welfare of such a minor should be paramount consideration. True, Reena expressed her desire to be with Baijantibai when she was interrogated in the Court for the purpose of understanding her inclination of mind but that is not to be, given any importance because after all Reena is a minor and she is not capable of taking any decision in context with her welfare and in her future course of life. It cannot be ignored that presently Reena is with Baijantibai and on account of her association with Baijantibai at Bombay Reena has been accustom to sophisticated temporary pleasant life of Bombay. Presently temporarily she is having of modern emenities for a comfortable life at Bombay. But it cannot be ignored that under the garb of "dancing" she is being sent to various places. Presently temporarily she is having of modern emenities for a comfortable life at Bombay. But it cannot be ignored that under the garb of "dancing" she is being sent to various places. It has come in the statement of some of the witnesses recorded during the investigation that Reena is exposed to prostitution by Baijantibai, Sultanali, Sunitabai and Jeetmal. She was accompanied by Manu @ Puja and some girls during such trips. Some telephone numbers were found in her purse when her purse was searched. Reena has also stated in open Court that Baijantibai and Sunitabai do the occupation of dancing and she is also doing dancing with them alongwith other girls relatives of Sunitabai, Baijantibai and Jeetmal. In this context the statement of wife of Sultanali is quite relevant. 24. When a person or a minor is unable to take care of himself or herself, the State is bound to take care of such person if that person happens to be a minor female being. The State which is the welfare State has to shoulder the responsibility of protecting such minor female from danger of bad element of the society which is prone to take advantage of such weaker person so far as mind and money is concerned. When the decision is to be taken in respect of custody of such a person who happens to be before the Court, the Court has to be attentive in respect of proper protection of such person. Both Dhannobai and Baijantibai are interested in taking the maximum advantage of the young age of Reena for security, comforts and comfortable life for them in future at the cost of the damage which they would be causing to Reena. As indicated by the statements of some witnesses recorded during the course of investigation, Reena has been taken to Dubai and Bahrin and she was lodged in good hotel ostensibly for the purpose of dancing, but the statement of Chanchal and some other witnesses show that she is exposed to prostitution. If that comes to be true, Reena is being exposed to danger of having some disease life H. I. V. (AIDS) and some other venereal diseases. These diseases are killer diseases. Whether such minor should be permitted to be exposed to such peril ? Certainly not. For avoiding such danger some restrictions need to be put on her movements in her own interest. 25. These diseases are killer diseases. Whether such minor should be permitted to be exposed to such peril ? Certainly not. For avoiding such danger some restrictions need to be put on her movements in her own interest. 25. Therefore, claims made by both Dhannobai and Baijantibai in respect of custody of Reena are dismissed keeping in view their conduct till this stage. It is hereby directed that the State should take the responsibility of taking Reena to proper Nari Sudhar Grah and to give her proper amenities of life so as to keep her soul and body intact and healthy. Till this date Reena has been kept in Nari Sudhar Grah, Indore and so far no complaint has been received in respect of any ill treatment. 26. Thus, the revision petitions filed by State of M.P. and Dhannobai (Cr. R. No. 250/96 & 192/96 respectively) are hereby allowed. The order passed by Sessions Judge, Rajgarh (Biora) is hereby set aside and he is directed to take cognizance of the case initiated on account of complaint lodged by Dhannobai with Pachor police in respect of offences punishable under provisions of Sections 363 and 366 of Indian Penal Code. The learned Sessions Judge should proceed further in accordance with provisions of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 against all the opponents. Misc. Criminal Case No. 2146/96 filed by the State is hereby allowed. Misc. Criminal Case No. 1671/96 filed by Dhannobai is hereby dismissed. 27. For one year from 2.4.1996 Reena alias Vandana, the girl who was produced before this Court and presently who is in Nari Sudhar Grah, Indore be kept in same Nari Sudhar Grah. In the meanwhile Reena is at liberty to prove that she is above 18 years of age by getting decree from competent civil Court. So also Baijantibai is permitted to get such decree from competent civil Court, if she wants that Reena should stay with her and if Reena is willing for that, after one year from 2.4.1996 (approximate date taken into consideration for coming to the conclusion that Reena was 17 years of the age on that date). Dhanhobai is also at liberty to obtain such decree from competent civil Court. 28. The other parties are having liberty to approach the competent civil Court to get decided the exact birth date of Reena and her age and for getting proper decree in that context. Dhanhobai is also at liberty to obtain such decree from competent civil Court. 28. The other parties are having liberty to approach the competent civil Court to get decided the exact birth date of Reena and her age and for getting proper decree in that context. Reena would be entitled to take her own decision so far as her future course of life is concerned, after one year from 2.4.1996. She would be at liberty to go wherever she desires subject to any decree passed by competent civil Court in that context. As prayed by both Shri Oberoi and Shri Jaisingh, Reena would be entitled to correspond and sign any pleadings or documents after necessary permission granted by the Superintendent of Nari Sudhar Grah, Indore in her presence. The Superintendent or Matron of Nari Sudhar Grah, Indore should allow all legal facilities to parties or Advocates appearing for them strictly following the rules of Nari Sudhar Grah and by remaining strictly attentive to the safety of Reena. 29. The observation made by this Court while deciding these matters shall not weigh to the prejudice of any contesting party at the time of trial or other proceedings. The Courts subordinate to this Courts would be entitled to have independent judgment in view of the material placed before such Courts. Parties are directed to appear before the Sessions Court, Rajgarh on 26.11.96. The record of the case be sent back to the respective Courts as early as possible.