Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 828 (TS)

A. Satish Babu v. State Of Telangana

2024-10-04

SUJANA KALASIKAM

body2024
ORDER : (Sujana Kalasikam, J.) 1. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/accused in C.C.No.499 of 2022 on the file of the learned I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad, registered for the offences punishable under Section 3 read with 14 of the Child Labour (Prohibition And Regulation) Act, 1986 (for short 'the Act'). 2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent No.2, who is a Labour Officer, lodged a complaint before the Police stating that as a part of operation Smile VIII, he along with operation simile saifabad Division team rescued a child boy by name P. Sai Charan, aged 11 years, working as helper at Dhanalaxmi Medical and General Stores, Chintalbasthi Main Road, Khairathabad, Hyderabad. The child was employed by the petitioner. Basing on the said complaint, the Police registered a case against the petitioner in Crime No.14 of 2022 for the offence punishable under Section 3 read with 14 of the Act and after completion of investigation, they filed charge sheet, vide C.C.No.499 of 2022 before the learned I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad. 3. Heard Sri K. Rathanga Pani Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri D. Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No.1-State. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that except the bald allegation that the petitioner has employed the child of 11 years, there is no documentary evidence to show that the age of the child is 11 years. He further submitted that the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged by respondent No.2. Even in the entire complaint and charge sheet, there is no, prima facie, material evidence to show that the child is below 12 years, which is mandatory under the Act. Further, it is settled principle of law that age of the person cannot be determined on the basis of oral evidence. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner has already paid an amount of Rs.20,000/- as compensation in terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in M.C. Mehta vs. State of Tamilnadu and others, (1996) 6 SCC 756 or W.P.(c)No.465 of 1996. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner has already paid an amount of Rs.20,000/- as compensation in terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in M.C. Mehta vs. State of Tamilnadu and others, (1996) 6 SCC 756 or W.P.(c)No.465 of 1996. Therefore, the allegation against the petitioner do not constitute any offence, as such, he prayed the Court to quash the proceedings against him. 6. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of the then High Court of Andhra Pradesh in P. Ramachander Rao vs. State of Andhra Pradesh AP, 2006 (1) ALD (crl) 883 (AP), wherein in paragraph Nos. 7 to 10, it is held as follows: 7. Child is defined in Section 2(ii) of the Act, which reads as follows: "'Child' means a person who has not completed his fourteenth year of age." 8. Under Section 3 of the Act, no child shall be employed or permitted to work in any of the occupations set forth in Part-A of the Schedule or in any workshop wherein any of the processes set forth in Part-B of the Schedule is carried on: Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to any workship wherein any process is carried on by the occupier with the aid of his family or to any school established by, or receiving assistance or recognition from, Government. 9. Section 10 of the Act deals with disputes as the age, which reads as follows: "If any question arises between an inspector and an occupier as to the age of any child who is employed or is permitted to work by him in an establishment, the question shall, in the absence of a certificate as to the age of such child granted by the prescribed medical authority, be referred by the Inspector for decision to the prescribed medical authority." 10. Section 14 (1) of the Act deals with penalties, which reads as follows: "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 three months but which may extend to one year or with fine which shall not be less than ten thousand rupees but which may extend to twenty thousand or with both." 7. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the prosecution will submit the proof of age and will produce the witnesses at the time of trial. Further, the case is at the stage of trial and therefore, quashing of proceedings against the petitioner at this stage does not arise, as such, prayed the Court to dismiss the criminal petition. 8. In the light of the submissions made by both the learned counsel and a perusal of the material available on record, the main allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner kept the child as worker in his shop. It is specifically contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there is no documentary evidence to show the age of the boy/victim and further contended that he did not commit any offence as alleged by respondent No.2. 9. As seen from the record, the Labour Department, Government of Telangana, issued notice to the petitioner on 13.01.2022 to deposit compensation of Rs.20,000/- as per judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M.C. Mehta (supra) dated 10.12.1996. Thereafter, the petitioner sent a reply stating that he paid an amount of Rs.20,000/- to the District Collector and Chiarman, Child Labour Rehabilitation-cum-Welfare Fund. 10. A cursory reading of the complaint would go to show that the main dispute in question is the age of the victim. Further, from a reading of Section 10 of the Act, it is clear that whenever there is any dispute regarding the age of the child, the question shall, in the absence of a certificate as to the age of such child granted by the prescribed medical authority, be referred by the Inspector for decision to the prescribed medical authority and in the absence of sending the child to the medical authority for determination of the age, the Inspector or Labour Officer cannot determine the age. 11. In view of the above discussion, as no evidence is adduced by the Police, and the statement of witnesses shows that the victim is below 14 years, but however, there is no documentary proof to that extent. Therefore, the allegation leveled against the petitioner do not constitute any offence, as such, continuation of proceedings against him is nothing but abuse of process of law. 12. Therefore, the allegation leveled against the petitioner do not constitute any offence, as such, continuation of proceedings against him is nothing but abuse of process of law. 12. Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.499 of 2022 on the file of the learned I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad, are hereby quashed. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed.