ORDER : By means of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the framing of the Charge against the accused Durlav Dhar alias Raju alias Sonai under Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 2. The main ground raised by Mr. S. Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that even if the allegations made in the FIR are accepted to be correct, then also sexual assault as defined in Section 7 of the Act is not made out. To appreciate this contention, it would be necessary to refer to Section 7 of the Act which reads as follows:- “7. Sexual Assault.—Whoever, with sexual intent touches the vagina, penis, anus or breast of the child or makes the child touch the vagina, penis, anus or breast of such person or any other person, or does any other act with sexual intent which involves physical contact without penetration is said to commit sexual assault.” 3. This Court need not make reference to the other portion of the Section but the words “or does any other act with sexual intent which involves physical contact without penetration is said to commit sexual assault” is sufficient to frame a Charge in the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. The FIR in this case reads as follows:- “To The Officer-in-Charge Melaghar Police Station Melaghar, Sepahijala Tripura. Sub: Application for proper justice through Investigation Complainant: Susmita Debnath (16) D/o. Lt. Narayan Debnath Of Chandigarh, P.S.-Melaghar Sepahijala, Tripura. Accused Person: Shri Durlav Dhar alias Raju and Sonai S/o. Shri Dulal Dhar Of Bania Cherra (Camper Tilla) P.S.-Melaghar Sepahijala, Tripura. Sir, I beg to state that the above said accused person restrained me on the road near Telkajla Tehasil around 11.30 hrs. today when I am going to Melaghar Class-XII Girls’ school for examination. However, I went to the school. He follows me upto the examination room in the second floor building in the school and he dragged me at the end of corridor where he forcibly kissed me and tried to undress me by pulling my school uniform. The above said accused person has always been threatening me since Dipabali (Kali Puja) if I do not make any relationship with him, I will be burnt through acid and my house would be ruined by fire. The above said accused person has always been threatening me since Dipabali (Kali Puja) if I do not make any relationship with him, I will be burnt through acid and my house would be ruined by fire. So, it is humbly prayed before you to give proper justice through proper investigation. Yours faithfully Dated: 15.11.2014 Sd/- (SUSMITA DEBNATH)” 5. The prosecutrix is a young girl aged 16 years and according to her, the accused grabbed her, forcibly kissed her and tried to undress her by pulling her school uniform. If these are not physical acts with sexual intent, I fail to understand what acts would mean sexual intent. The touching of the private parts as described in Section 7 is not the only act which can fall within the purview of Section 7 of the Act. The legislature in its wisdom has used very wide language which states that “does any other act with sexual intent which involves physical contact”. Kissing is something which involves physical contact and is done with sexual intent. Pulling the girl’s uniform to undress her is something which involves physical contact and has sexual connotations. Therefore, I am clearly of the view that the allegations made in the FIR justify the framing of Charge under Section 8 of the Act. 6. The next submission of Mr. Ali, learned counsel, is that there is no need to frame a Charge under section 8 of the Act and a Charge could have been framed under sections 354A or 354B of the Indian Penal Code. 7. Section 354 deals with the outraging of the modesty of a woman. Section 354A which was inserted on 03-02-2013 deals with sexual harassment and is much wider in its connotation than Sections 7 and 8 of the Act. An offence punishable under section 8 of the Act is of a more serious nature than Section 354A though the punishment may be the same. 8. Section 354B deals with assault or using criminal force to disrobe a woman and the punishment can be up to 7 (seven) years. This Section may have been attracted because in the FIR it is stated that the intention of the accused was to disrobe the prosecutrix. He has, in fact, been charged with a lesser offence and I see no reason why I should entertain this petition on his behalf. This Section may have been attracted because in the FIR it is stated that the intention of the accused was to disrobe the prosecutrix. He has, in fact, been charged with a lesser offence and I see no reason why I should entertain this petition on his behalf. It may also be added that Sections 354A and 354B deal with offences against women as a class. An offence under section 354A and 354B can be committed against any female whatever be her age. The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, however, deals with the prevention of sexual abuse of children regardless of their sex. A boy can also be the victim as far as an offence under section 7 is concerned. 9. The provisions of the Act and the IPC operate in different fields and when children are involved, it is better that the Charges are framed under the Special Act, i.e. the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act. We must realize that our Courts are not litigant friendly, especially with regard to women and children. Poor persons and women and children can be overawed by the atmosphere of the Court. Therefore, Parliament in its wisdom decided that offences under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act shall be tried by Special Judges of the rank of Sessions Judges. It is expected that people of this rank with their experience will be able to provide a much more congenial atmosphere to the victims than the less experienced Magistrates. 10. In view of the above, I am clearly of the view that the petition is without any merit and is rejected. It is, however, made clear that any observations made hereinabove have been made only for the purpose of disposing of this petition and deals with the allegations at the stage of framing Charge and nothing said in this order shall affect the final verdict in the case which the Special Judge must decide strictly in accordance with law and on the basis of the evidence led before him. 11. Before parting with the case, I must express my serious reservations with regard to the manner in which the case has proceeded. The offence is alleged to have been committed on 15-11-2014. The accused approached this Court for grant of bail. 11. Before parting with the case, I must express my serious reservations with regard to the manner in which the case has proceeded. The offence is alleged to have been committed on 15-11-2014. The accused approached this Court for grant of bail. At that stage, it was pointed out that the case is listed for recording of the evidence of the prosecutrix and her witnesses on 5th and 6th February, 2015. This Court had ordered that the accused should not be released till 06-02-2015 in the afternoon. It was expected that the prosecutrix would be examined before that time on 05-02-2015, the date fixed and, therefore, this Court had thought that after the statement of the victim is recorded, the custody of the accused may not be required any further. On the last date, on inquiry this Court was informed that no witnesses were examined on the said two dates and the case was adjourned without witnesses and, therefore, in the afternoon of 06-02-2015 in accordance with the orders passed by this Court in the bail application, the accused was enlarged on bail. On 09-02-2015 this Court had called for the lower court records and had also asked Mr. R.C. Debnath, learned Addl. P.P., to find out why the witnesses were not produced before the Court on the date fixed. 12. Order of the trial Court dated 05-02-2015 reads as follows:- “Accused Durlav Dhar alias Raju is produced from the JC. A petition is filed by his engaged counsel praying for stay the trial on the ground that accused filed revision against the order dated 20-01-2015 before the Hon’ble High Court today. Learned Additional PP is present, but without witness. Heard learned counsel for the accused. Necessary order on the petition shall be passed on the next date. No bail petition being filed, accused is remanded to JC till 06-02-2015. To date fixed.” It shows that a petition was filed by the counsel engaged by the accused praying for stay of the trial on the ground that he wanted to file a revision against the order dated 20-01-2015, meaning thereby that the counsel for the accused did not want the witnesses to be examined on that date. 13. This practice cannot be encouraged. 13. This practice cannot be encouraged. When bail was granted specifically on the understanding that the bail petitioner would be granted bail only after the evidence of prosecutrix and her witnesses were recorded, it is not expected that such a request is made and taking advantage of such request, bail is taken on the next date. If this had been the only request, I would not have hesitated to cancel the bail today, but unfortunately I find that even the learned Public Prosecutor who was present did not oppose this application and furthermore, the Court recorded that no witnesses were present. On the next day, the learned Special Judge quoted the bail order passed by this Court and thereafter granted bail to the accused. Three witnesses were present on that date, but the Court did not record their statements. I fail to understand why the Court did not record the statements of the three witnesses who were present. 14. The matter does not end here. According to the Court record, on the first date no witnesses were present and on the second date three witnesses were present but they were discharged. Mr. R.C. Debnath, learned Addl. P.P., has produced before me a letter sent to him by the Officer-in-charge of the Melagarh Police Station, Sepahijala, Tripura which reads as follows:- “To The Public Prosecutor High Court of Agartala. Reference:- MLG P.S. Case No.-93/14 (Special PCSO/01/ 2015) in c/w Criminal Revision Petition No.-07/2015. Sir, As per your verbal instruction I have verified the deposition of three witness namely (1) Miss Susmita Debnath (2) Smti. Manju Debnath and (3) Supriya Debbarma (Saha) on 05/02/2015 before Ld. Court of Special Judge, Agartala. All the three witnesses appeared before Ld. Court on 05/02/2015. On being asked witnesses Sl. No.-1 & 2 stated that while they reached at Court at that time one person appeared before them and given his identity as ‘Muhari’ and stated that today is time over and Magistrate is not available. He also stated them next date will be informed over telephone. They also demanded for Court Certificate but he told them Court Certificate is not required. Accordingly they returned to their house at Melaghar. Witness Sl. No.-3 appeared before Ld. Court on 05/02/15 but she stated that he returned without examination and taken certificate from Court. On asking she also produce the Court Certificate before me. They also demanded for Court Certificate but he told them Court Certificate is not required. Accordingly they returned to their house at Melaghar. Witness Sl. No.-3 appeared before Ld. Court on 05/02/15 but she stated that he returned without examination and taken certificate from Court. On asking she also produce the Court Certificate before me. This is for favour of your kind information please. Yours faithfully, Sd/-(Illegible) 16/02/15. Officer-in-charge Melagarh Police Station Sepahijala, Tripura.” 15. According to the In-charge of the Police Station, three witnesses including the prosecutrix, the mother of the prosecutrix and the eye witness went to the Court on 05-02-2015. According to them, they were told that when they reached the Court, one person appeared before them and stated that he was the ‘Muhari’ (Clerk of an Advocate) and stated that Court time is over and the Magistrate is not available and, therefore, sent them back. When they asked for Court Certificates, he told them that the Court Certificate is not required. They returned to their houses at Melaghar. Witness No.3, however, again appeared before the learned Court and according to her, she was sent back without examination and she had taken the certificate from the Court. The certificate has been attached and it has not been issued by the Court but by the Additional Public Prosecutor, West Tripura, Agartala. A communication sent to Mr. Debnath, the Addl. Public Prosecutor by the Public Prosecutor handling the case is also attached. It shows that the Public Prosecutor handling the case was not available on 05-02-2015 and in his absence, the Additional Public Prosecutor had taken steps in connection with the case. According to the Public Prosecutor, no witnesses came on that day, i.e. 05-02-2015 and, therefore, none came to Court. 16. At this stage, this Court cannot decide who is telling the truth. However, one fact is certain that the Court record is correct. There is no hazira on the Court record to show that three witnesses were present on 05-02-2015. Even the Public Prosecutor in his letter has stated that on 05-02-2015 no witnesses were present. However, I am of the prima facie opinion that the prosecutrix, her mother and one eye witness did come to Court that day and somebody sent them back. Who that somebody was cannot be decided by this Court in these proceedings. Even the Public Prosecutor in his letter has stated that on 05-02-2015 no witnesses were present. However, I am of the prima facie opinion that the prosecutrix, her mother and one eye witness did come to Court that day and somebody sent them back. Who that somebody was cannot be decided by this Court in these proceedings. Therefore, when these witnesses appear in Court, the learned Special Judge will specifically ask the victim and the witnesses to identify or give description of the person who sent them back from Court and a regular inquiry in the matter will be held and thereafter, a report in this behalf shall be submitted to this Court on the administrative side. 17. As far as the Public Prosecutor’s office is concerned, it is the job of the Investigating Officer as well as the Public Prosecutor to ensure that witnesses are taken to the chamber of the Public Prosecutor in the morning and they may have to be briefed about the background of the case and then produced in Court. It is expected that some police officials well conversant with the facts of the case should always be present in the Court to identify the witnesses and also to assist the Public Prosecutor to properly examine or cross-examine the witnesses. 18. Copy of this order shall be sent to the Secretary, Home as well as the Director General of Police to ensure that in future cases are properly prosecuted both by Public Prosecutor as well as by the Police. 19. Even the learned Special Judge was remiss in not examining three witnesses who appeared on 06-02-2015 only on the ground that the accused has preferred a revision against the order dated 20-01-2015. Unless a stay order has been granted by the higher Court, the trial Judge has no business of adjourning a case where witnesses are present and such witnesses must be examined. Even the learned counsel knew that bail had been granted on the condition that the witnesses would be examined and it was not expected of the counsel to ask for a date so that his client could get bail without the witnesses being examined. The parties are directed to appear before the Special Judge, West Tripura on 03-03-2015, the date fixed. 20. With the above observation, the revision petition is disposed of. 21. Send back the lower court records forthwith.