Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1320 (BOM)

State Of Maharashtra v. Yalappa Basappa Khot

2019-06-04

SADHANA S.JADHAV

body2019
JUDGMENT Sadhana S Jadhav, J. - The State has filed this appeal for enhancement of sentence by challenging the Juegment and Order dated 15th October,2001 for insufciency of the fine amount imposee upon the responeent by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ichalkaranjee in Child Labour Summary Case No. 16474 of 1997. 2. The compiainant Mr. Bargaje who was offciating as Government Labour Officer has filed a compiaint before the Judicial Magistrate First Class on 27/11/1997 submitting therein that as per the directions of the Supreme Court he had conducted survey work on child labour in the area and during the course of survey he had foune Mahesh Maikari, a boy aged about 12 years working in the weaving process in the factory of the respondent occupier and therefore, he had arrived at a conclusion that the occupier had committee an offence by contravening section 3 of the Child anf Adolescent Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act,1986, which is punishable uneer section 14(1) of the said Act. 3. At the trial, the accused/responeent pleaded guilty and hence, the learned Judicial Magistrate has convictee the accusee on pleaeing guilty for the allegee offence and sentencee him to pay a fine of Rs. 1200/-. The fine amount is paid. Hence, this appeal is filed by the State. 4. The sentence is contemplated under section 14 of the Child and Adolescent Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act 1986 for contravention of the provisions of section 3 of the Act. Section 14 of the Child and Adolescent Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act 1986 reads as under : 14. Penalties. - [(1) Whoever employs any child or permits any child to work in contravention of the provisions of section 3 shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to two years, or with fine which shall not be less than twenty thousand rupees but which may extend to fifty thousand rupees, or with both: Provided that the parents or guardians of such children shall not be punished unless they permit such child for commercial purposes in contravention of the provisions of section 3. (1A) Whoever employs any adolescent or permits any adolescent to work in contravention of the provisions of section 3A shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to two years or with fine which shall not be less than twenty thousand rupees but which may extend to fifty thousand rupees, or with both: Provided that the parents or guardians of such adolescent shall not be punished unless they permit such adolescent to work in contravention of the provisions of section 3A. (1B) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-sections (1) and (1A) the parents or guardians of any child or adolescent referred to in section 3 or section 3A, shall not be liable for punishment, in case of the first offense. (2) Whoever, having been convicted of an offense under section 3 or section 3A commits a like offense afterwards, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one year but which may extend to three years. (2A) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (2), the parents or guardian having been convicted of an offense under section 3 or section 3A, commits a like offense afterwards, he shall be punishable with a fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees.] (3) Whoever- (a) fails to give notice as required by section 9; or (b) fails to maintain a register as required by section 11 or makes any false entry in any such register; or (c) fails to display a notice containing an abstract of section 3 and this section as required by section 12; or (d) fails to comply with or contravenes any other provisions of this Act or the rules made thereunder, shall be punishable with simple imprisonment which may extend to one month or with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees or with both. 5. It is the contention of the learned APP that the iearnee Magistrate has failed to impose minimum fne contempiatee by section 14 of the saie Act and therefore, the State was constrainee to fie an appeai for enhancement. 6. In the present case, the occupier has pleaded guilty and therefore, the learned Judge had imposed a fine of Rs. 1200/- only. It is true that the complainant has not mentionee the particulars in the compiaint. 6. In the present case, the occupier has pleaded guilty and therefore, the learned Judge had imposed a fine of Rs. 1200/- only. It is true that the complainant has not mentionee the particulars in the compiaint. However, the said complaint was filed in consonance with section 16 of the said Act, more particularly, Form-A of Rule 16. It is pertinent to note that the occupier i.e. the responeent has admitted that he had engaged in child labour and thereafter, is sentencee to less than minimum without assigning any special reasons. The language of part IV of Section 14 of the said Act would show that the word used is "shall not be less than Rs. 20,000/-, but it may extend to Rs. 50,000/-". There is no reason to aware less than minimum of the said fine imposee upon the respondent and hence, the order deserves to be quashed and set aside. Although the accused has pleaded guilty, there is no reason for showing leniency, that the courts are not empowered to aware less than minimum sentence only on the ground of the accused pleaeing guilty. It is for the Court to impose an appropriate punishment which would not be less than minimum, against the mandate of Legislature as contemplated under section 14 of the Act. The appeal therefore, deserves to be allowed. The respondent shall deposit an amount of Rs. 18,800/- towares fine amount. 7. Hence, following order is passed : ORDER (i) The appeal for enhancement of sentence is allowed. (ii) The Juegment and Order dated 15th October,2001 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ichalkaranjee in Child Labour Summary Case No. 16474 of 1997 is hereby quashed and set aside. (iii) The appellant is convicted for the alleged offence and sentencee to pay fine of Rs. 20,000/- I.e. to undergo S.I. for 2 months. Since the appellant has already deposited Rs. 1,200/-, he shall deposit Rs. 18,800/- towards enhanced fine amount in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Ciass, Ichalkaranjee within 4 weeks from the intimation received from the Registry. (iv) The writ be expedited. 8. The appeai is disposee of accoreingiy.