Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 159 (KAR)

U. R. Bheemasena v. State of Karnataka

2016-02-16

A.V.CHANDRASHEKARA

body2016
ORDER : A.V. Chandrashekara, J. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Special Public Prosecutor. Perused the impugned order dated 17-11-2015 passed by the learned Judge dealing with special cases in Spl. C.C. No. 540 of 2014. Charge-sheet is filed against this petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 370 and 374 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 23 and 24 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. The allegation against this petitioner is that he had engaged the services of children aged below 14 years from morning till evening and a case was registered on the basis of information given by a voluntary organisation and on completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed for the above offences. 2. An application had been filed under Section 227 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 requesting the Court to discharge the accused. The main emphasis of the learned Senior Counsel representing the revision petitioner, Mr. C.H. Jadhav is that the Court below has not at all discussed and considered the judgment rendered by the Constitutional Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Lalita Kumari v Government of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 2014 SC 187 : (2014)1 SCC (Cri.) 524 : 2014 Cri. L.J. 470 (SC) : (2014)2 SCC 1 . In paragraph 14 of the impugned order, the learned Judge has observed as follows: "14. In view of the aforesaid rulings cited on accused's side, the facts and circumstances of those cases are entirely different. Here is a specific allegation that accused were found engaging for domestic work of which can be termed as hazardous work and they were made to work from morning to evening. Above all, as per the allegations they are below the age of 14 years. Though on accused's side contended that they are above the age of 14 years, they are the points to be looked into at the time of trial. Apart from that so far as concerned to legal aspect i.e., non-registration of FIR is concerned, the aforesaid rulings cited on accused's side do not come to his aid as the present case is entirely different from those cases. Apart from that so far as concerned to legal aspect i.e., non-registration of FIR is concerned, the aforesaid rulings cited on accused's side do not come to his aid as the present case is entirely different from those cases. On perusal of records, it would be clear that on 14-2-2014 Labour Officer by taking security from police, raided on the basis of the information given by the Co-ordinator, Bachpan Bachao Andolan, thereafter the Co-ordinator had lodged a complaint on 18-2-2014 before the SHO. Then the case was registered. It is not the case wherein I may find that complaint was lodged before the SHO on 14-2-2014. Therefore, as mentioned in supra that the facts and circumstances of the aforesaid cases are altogether different from the case on hand. Hence, those rulings relating to non-registration of FIR also are not helpful to the accused in the present case." 3. What is the law laid down in the case of Lalita Kumari and how it is not applicable to the facts of the present case should have been discussed in the background of the present case. Therefore, the approach of the Trial Court is wholly incorrect and improper and needs to be properly considered. Accordingly the revision petition requires to be allowed. In the result, the following order is passed: "ORDER (I) The revision petition is allowed. The matter is remitted to the Trial Court to pass appropriate orders, keeping in mind the Constitutional Bench decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Lalita Kumari with reference to the applicability of Section 370 of IPC to the facts of the present case. (II) This exercise shall be done at the earliest. (III) Registry to send the entire records to the Trial Court along with a copy of this order. (IV) All the contentions urged on both sides are kept open."