JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner is the accused in Crime No. 635/2010 of Konny Police Station. The offences alleged in the crime are those punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘I.P.C.’) read with Section 134(a) and (b) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’). 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 22.8.2010 at about 8.30 hours an Alto car bearing Regn.No.KL.3T 2803 driven by the petitioner through Vellapara-Chinamukku public road from west to east in a rash and negligent manner hit on an Activa scooter bearing Regn.No.KL-03 917 driven through Konny-Pathanapuram public road. In the accident, the rider of the Activa scooter and the pillion rider on it sustained injuries. CW2, the pillion rider in the Activa Scooter was a minor child aged 12 years. Therefore, the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Pathanamthitta found the case exclusively triable by the Children’s court and thereupon, vide proceedings No.151/2010, committed the matter to the District and Sessions Court, Pathanamthitta, which is the designated Children’s Court as per Section 25 of the Commission for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005 (for short ‘the Act’). The certified copy of the order in C.P.No.151/2010 is appended along with this petition as Annexure A1. 4. The District and Sessions Court, Pathanamthitta received the case which was committed to it and numbered it as S.C.No.227/2011. 5. Annexure A1 committed order dated 15.12.2010 is sought to be quashed in this petition on the reason that while passing the said order, the court has committed a grave error. The copy of the final report in Crime No.635/2010 dated 17.9.2010 is also appended along with this application as Annexure A2. It is contended that the final report will in no way divulge any offence committed in violation of the child rights. In the case on hand, the only allegation was that the petitioner due to his rash and negligent driving of an Alto car, caused injury to CW2, who is a child. Therefore, there cannot be said to be any intentional violation of child right as contemplated by Section 25 of the Act and it cannot be construed as an offence infringing the right of the child. Therefore, there cannot be said to be any intentional violation of child right as contemplated by Section 25 of the Act and it cannot be construed as an offence infringing the right of the child. It is contended by the counsel that in the said circumstances, the committal court is absolutely unjustified in committing the case on its file to the District and Sessions Court, Pathanamthitta, which is the designated Children’s Court. The case ought to have been tried by the committal court itself. 6. Sri. Philip. T. Varghese, counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the respondent were heard. 7. Sri. Philip. T. Varghese, learned counsel for the petitioner has addressed this Court citing Abdul Aziz. M. v. Circle Inspector of Police ( 2011 (4) KLT 1003 ) in support of the grounds raised in the petition. It is contended by him that the minor child was injured in a motor accident due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the petitioner and the rights of the child cannot be said to be violated in the accident. According to him, in the aforesaid circumstances, the case on hand cannot be taken as exclusively triable by the Children’s Court, but one triable by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Pathanamthitta itself. 8. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that infringement of the right of a child is involved in the case and therefore, District and Sessions Court, Pathanamthitta being the designated Children’s Court is the authorized court to deal with the matter. According to him, therefore, the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Pathanamthitta is perfectly justified in committing the case to the District and Sessions Court, Pathanamthitta by Annexure A1 passed in C.P.No.151/2010 and interference is uncalled for. 9. In this connection, it is pertinent to have a look at the definition of the offences involved in the crime. Section 279 I.P.C. provides for punishment for rash driving or riding on a public way. It reads as follows:- “279. Rash driving or riding on a public way. 9. In this connection, it is pertinent to have a look at the definition of the offences involved in the crime. Section 279 I.P.C. provides for punishment for rash driving or riding on a public way. It reads as follows:- “279. Rash driving or riding on a public way. – Whoever drives any vehicle, or rides, on any public way in a manner so rash or negligent as to endanger human life, or to be likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.” Section 337 provides punishment for causing hurt by act endangering life or personal safety of others. “337. Causing hurt by act endangering life or personal safety of others. – Whoever causes hurt to any person by doing any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life, or the personal safety of others, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.” Section 338 provides punishment for causing grievous hurt by act endangering life or personal safety of others. It reads:- “338. Causing grievous hurt by act endangering life or personal safety of others. – Whoever causes grievous hurt to any person by doing any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life, or the personal safety of others, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.” Section 134(1)(a) of the Act deals with the duty of a driver in case a motor accident was occurred and injury was sustained by a person. Section 39 I.P.C. provides for the meaning of the word ‘voluntarily’. It reads as follows:- “39. “Voluntarily”. Section 39 I.P.C. provides for the meaning of the word ‘voluntarily’. It reads as follows:- “39. “Voluntarily”. – A person is said to cause an effect “voluntarily” when the causes it by means whereby he intended to cause it, or by means which, at the time of employing those means, he knew or had reason to believe to be likely to cause it.” Therefore, a person is said to do something voluntarily, when he causes it by means whereby he intended to cause it or he knew or had reason to believe to be likely to cause it. In the offences aforementioned, the word ‘voluntarily’ or ‘intentionally’ is lacking. Section 25 of the Act is quoted hereinbelow:- “25. Children’s Courts. – For the purpose of providing speedy trial of offences against children or of violation of child rights, the State Government may, with the concurrence of the Chief Justice of the High Court, by notification, specify at least a court in the State or specify, for each district, a Court of Session to be a Children’s Court to try the said offences: Provided that nothing in this section shall apply if – (a) a Court of Session is already specified as a special court; or (b) a special court is already constituted, for such offences under any other law for the time being in force.” In view of the provision, the court of Sessions is designated as the children’s court to try the offences against children or of violation of child rights in a speedy manner. 10. The Act was enacted in the back drop of infringement or violation of the several rights guaranteed to the children under the Constitution of India. The Constitution in itself incorporate several safeguards against violation of the rights guaranteed to the children. It enable the State Governments to make special provisions for children and also direct that the policy of the State shall be such that the tender age of the children is not abused. The Government is also committed to give children opportunities and facilities to develop in healthy atmosphere with required freedom and dignity, and to ensure that their constitutional and legal rights are protected. In view of the aforesaid provisions contained in the Constitution, the Commissions for Protection of Child Rights Bill was introduced in the Parliament. The Government is also committed to give children opportunities and facilities to develop in healthy atmosphere with required freedom and dignity, and to ensure that their constitutional and legal rights are protected. In view of the aforesaid provisions contained in the Constitution, the Commissions for Protection of Child Rights Bill was introduced in the Parliament. The objects and reasons behind the same are extracted hereinbelow: “India has the largest child population in the world. Well being of children is a universal aspiration. Constitution of India guarantees several rights to the children including equality before law. Free and compulsory primary education to all children of the age group of six to fourteen years, prohibition of trafficking and forced labour of children and prohibitions of employment of children below the age of fourteen years in factories, mines or hazardous occupations. The Constitution enables the State to make special provisions for children and directs that the policy of the State shall be such that their tender age is not abused. The Government is committed to give children opportunities and facilities to develop in healthy atmosphere with required freedom and dignity, and to ensure that their constitutional and legal rights are protected.” 11. It follows therefrom that only when offences violating any of the rights of a child are involved in a case, it needs to be tried by a Children’s Court as contemplated under Section 25 of the Act. 12. In the case in question, the petitioner is alleged to have committed the offences under Sections 279, 337 and 338. Causing hurt or grievous hurt by rash and negligent driving is the ingredient of those offences. In Cambridge Advanced Learner’s Dictionary, Third Edition, the word ‘rash’ when used as adjective means careless or unwise, without thought for what might happen or result, meaning thereby that while doing something, the person did not think about the costs involved. In Cambridge Advanced Learner’s Dictionary Third Edition, the word ‘negligence’ when used as adjective means not being careful or giving enough attention to people or things that are your responsibility. Therefore, when the allegation was to the effect that a person has acted in a rash and negligent manner, it cannot be said that he has acted intentionally. In view of the above, the petitioner in the case on hand cannot be said to have acted intentionally while causing injury to the victim. Therefore, when the allegation was to the effect that a person has acted in a rash and negligent manner, it cannot be said that he has acted intentionally. In view of the above, the petitioner in the case on hand cannot be said to have acted intentionally while causing injury to the victim. Or in other words, hurt or grievous hurt was caused to the child not by any intentional act of the petitioner. Without the juncture of the mental element like intention, infringement or violation of a right is not possible. Contextually, hurt or grievous hurt was caused to the child in the motor accident resulted from the rash and negligent driving by the petitioner. But the right of the child cannot be said to have been infringed or violated by the petitioner by his act. The incident in which the child has sustained injuries can only be said to be caused accidentally out of rashness and negligence on the part of the petitioner. In such circumstances, the petitioner cannot be said to have intentionally caused hurt or grievous hurt to the child in the case on hand to put the same within the jurisdiction of the Sessions Court, Pathanamthitta. Therefore, the Sessions Court, Pathanamthitta, which is designated as the children’s court cannot be said to have any authority to try the case. The Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Pathanamthitta, which is the committal court is the appropriate court to try the case. 13. In Abdul Aziz’s case (supra), a Single Bench of this Court had occasion to deal with a situation of similar nature and held as follows:- “…………. Even if the victim in an accident case is aged below 18 years, such cases registered under Sections 279, 337, 338 or 304(A) of IPC, being cases arising out of an accident need not be tried by the Children’s Court, constituted under Section 25 of the Central Act 4/2006. But, other cases involving violation of ‘child rights’, acts done with the intention to violate or infringe the ‘child rights’ if done with the knowledge that by his act the child right is likely to be violated then such offences are to be tried by the Children’s Court. The learned Magistrates, before whom such charge sheets are filed, are to apply their minds and find whether offences complained of involve violation of the ‘child rights’. The learned Magistrates, before whom such charge sheets are filed, are to apply their minds and find whether offences complained of involve violation of the ‘child rights’. If so, such cases are to be committed to the Court of Sessions (The children’s Court), following the procedure prescribed under Sections 207 to 209 Cr.P.C.” 14. In view of the discussion hereinabove made and in view of the aforesaid dictum, this Court is of the view that Annexure A1 committed order will not sustain in the eye of law. In the result, this Crl.M.C. is allowed. Annexure A1 order dated 15.12.2010 passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Pathanamthitta in C.P.No.151/2010 and all further proceedings initiated on its basis by the District and Sessions Court, Pathanamthitta in S.C. No. 227/2011 stand quashed. The Sessions Court, Pathanamthitta is directed to remit the records back to the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Pathanamthitta for proceeding with the trial as expeditiously as possible.