Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 379 (UTT)

Tuffail Ahmad v. State of Uttarakhand

2013-06-25

U.C.DHYANI

body2013
ORDER Present criminal revision was preferred by the accused revisionists against the judgment and order dated 31.08.2005, passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar, in complaint case No. 2892 of 2000, captioned as State v. Tuffail and another, under Section 14(1) of the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986, and against the order dated 30.07.2007, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Haridwar, in criminal appeal No. 53 of 2005, Tuffail Ahmad and another v. State, whereby the revisionists were convicted under Section 3/14(1) of the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986, and each one of them was sentenced to undergo six months' rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- each. 2. The allegation against the accused persons/revisionists was that they had engaged child labour in their cane crusher establishment, which was an offence under the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986. When the complainant made a survey of the establishment of the accused persons, it was found that one Nain Singh s/o. Chattar Singh, aged 10 years, was employed by them. 3. PW1 Gopal Krishan, Asstt. Labour Commissioner, Meerut Division and PW2 Mahendra Singh, Labour Enforcement Officer, Moradabad were examined on behalf of the prosecution. Incriminating evidence was put to the accused persons under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., in which they said that child labour Nain Singh came to provide meals to his father in the cane crusher. It was stated under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. that child labour Nain Singh was not employed in said establishment of the accused revisionists. DW1 Chattar Singh, father of Nain Singh, was examined as DW1 to say that Nain Singh, aged 11 years, came to provide meals to DW1. 4. PW1 Gopal Krishan, Asstt. Labour Commissioner, Meerut was posted as Labour Enforcement Officer, Roorkee on 30.1.2001. When PW1 surveyed the cane crusher establishment of the accused revisionists, he found child labour Nain Singh s/o Chattar Singh working there. Survey report was prepared in the presence of Nanhe Hasan. The child labour Nain Singh affixed his thumb impression on the survey report, which was also signed by Nanhe Hasan. The survey report was exhibited as Ext. Ka-1. The establishment of the accused persons was registered under the Factories Act, 1948, in which the employment of persons below 14 years was prohibited. The complaint (Ext. The child labour Nain Singh affixed his thumb impression on the survey report, which was also signed by Nanhe Hasan. The survey report was exhibited as Ext. Ka-1. The establishment of the accused persons was registered under the Factories Act, 1948, in which the employment of persons below 14 years was prohibited. The complaint (Ext. Ka-2) was filed by PW2 Mahendra Singh, who was also present when the establishment of the accused persons was surveyed. PW1, in his cross-examination, said that the owner of the establishment was not present when they made a survey. The name of the father of child labour was written on the basis of information provided by the child labour. No father, much less DW1 Chattar Singh, who also worked in the selfsame establishment, will admit that his minor son was employed in the establishment in which he was working. Learned trial court, relied upon the testimony of PW1 and PW2 and said that such persons holding responsible posts were not expected to tell a lie. In other words, the evidence tendered by PW1 and PW2, who were holding responsible posts, was acceptable and was believed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar, for no unjust reason. When the appeal was preferred against the order passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar, the same was dismissed vide order dated 30.07.2007. The judgment rendered by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate was affirmed by learned lower appellate court, who also came to the conclusion that the offence complained of against the accused persons was proved beyond reasonable doubt. 5. There appears to be no illegality in the concurrent findings of the courts below. This Court is unable to take a view different from what was taken by the courts below. Conviction of the accused revisionists under Section 3/14(1) of the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986, is affirmed. Learned Amicus Curiae prayed that a lenient view be taken against the revisionists. He submitted that revisionists were not previous convicts. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the sentence awarded to the accused revisionists should be reduced. 6. While the conviction of the accused revisionists is affirmed, the sentence awarded to them is modified to the extent that each one of them shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months along with a fine of Rs. 6. While the conviction of the accused revisionists is affirmed, the sentence awarded to them is modified to the extent that each one of them shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months along with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- each, in default of payment of which, the defaulters shall undergo further imprisonment for a period of one month. 7. With the modification as above, the criminal revision is finally disposed of. 8. Let a copy of this judgment along with lower court records be sent to the court below for ensuring compliance as above. Order accordingly.