Delhi District Court
State vs Naresh Kumar Sharma Etc on 15 May, 2024
IN THE COURT OF SH. ANKIT KARAN SINGH, MM-08,
WEST DISTRICT, ROOM NO. 30, THC, DELHI.
FIR No. : 218/2012
u/S : 3/14 Child Labour Act (Prohibition &
Regulation) & 23/26 J.J. Act (Care &
Protection of Children).
P.S. : Mianwali Nagar
State Vs. Naresh Kumar Sharma & Ors.
JUDGMENT:
a) CNR No. : DLWT02-002384-2013
b) Sl. No. of the Case : 66944/2016
c) Name & address of the : Sh. Hukam Chand,
complainant SDM, Punjabi Bagh, Delhi.
d) Name & address of : 1- Naresh Kumar Sharma (deceased),
Accused persons S/o Sh. Bansi Lal,
R/o Flat No. 1, Venus Apartment,
Mianwali Nagar, Delhi.
2- Vinod Bhardwaj @Dinu,
S/o Sh. Balkishan,
R/o SRS-201, Peeragarhi Village,
Delhi.
3- Jatin Miglani,
S/o Sh. Ravi Miglani,
R/o H.No. 82, 3rd floor,
Bhera Enclave, Paschim Vihar,
Delhi.
FIR No: 218/12 State v. Naresh Kumar Sharma & Ors. Page 1/36
e) Date of Commission of : 31.08.2012
offence
f) Offence complained off : u/S 3/14 Child Labour Act
(Prohibition & Regulation) &
23/26 J.J. Act (Care & Protection of Children).
g) Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty.
persons
h) Final Order : Convicted
i) Date of such order : 15.05.2024
j) State represented by : Sh. Amit Yadav, Ld. APP.
k) Accused persons : Sh. Sanjay Dalal, Ld. Counsel.
represented by
Date of Institution : 09.10.2013
Final arguments heard on : 08.02.2024
Judgment Pronounced on : 15.05.2024
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISION: -
1. Briefly stated, case of the prosecution is that on 31.08.2011, at Peeragarhi a raid was conducted by the District Task Force and NGO of "Bachpan Bachao Andolan" within the jurisdiction of PS Mianwali Nagar, accused persons namely Naresh Kumar Sharma (deceased), Vinod Bhardwaj @ Dinu and Jatin Miglani have employed the children/minors and they have the actual charge or control over the children/minors below the age of 18 years willfully neglected the juvenile or procured them to be neglected in a manner likely to cause such children/minors unnecessary mental or physical suffering and thereby committed offence punishable FIR No: 218/12 State v. Naresh Kumar Sharma & Ors. Page 2/36 u/S 23/26 J.J. Act. Secondly, on the said date and place accused persons have employed the children/minors below the age of 14 years and they compelled to work thereby accused persons committed offence punishable u/S 3/14 of Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act 1986.
2. After investigation, challan for offence u/S 23/26 J.J. Act & 3/14 Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act 1986 was filed. Compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C was done.
3. Charge for committing the offence punishable under Section 23/26 J.J. Act & 3/14 Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act 1986 was framed against accused persons namely, Naresh Kumar Sharma (deceased), Vinod Bhardwaj and Jatin Miglani on 18.11.2015 to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined seventeen witnesses.
5. PW-1 Sh. Amardeep, Assistant Labour Commissioner, South District, Pushpa Bhawan, Pushp Vihar, Delhi has deposed that on 31.08.2012, District Task Force has carried out a child labour raid in Peeragarhi area within the jurisdiction of PS Mianwali Nagar. He further stated that during the raid, total nine children were rescued from three premises. He further stated that the District Task Force was consisting of SDM Punjabi Bagh, other labour department staff, police staff and other NGO BBA (Bachpan Bachao Aandolan) members and headed by SDM Punjabi Bagh. He further stated that all the members assembled at the office of the SDM Punjabi Bagh at about 10.30-11.00 AM. He further stated that the team proceeded to Peeragarhi area from the office and they reached at Peeragarhi after 15-20 minutes. He further stated that they started to inspect the units in the area of Peeragarhi and they found child labour working in the different units and these units were already identified by the NGO BBA. He further stated that their team was separated in three sub teams after reaching at Peeragarhi areas under the headship of SDM Punjabi Bagh. He further stated that those three teams went at different units and rescued FIR No: 218/12 State v. Naresh Kumar Sharma & Ors. Page 3/36 child labour. He further stated that the children were brought at the office of SDM, Punjabi Bagh where there statement was recorded. He further stated that the team noted the addresses of the premises from where these children were rescued. He further stated that the exercise of rescuing children and bringing them to the office at SDM Punjabi Bagh took almost 1 to 1.30 hours. He further stated that on the basis of their prima facie appearance and the statements of the children, they considered the age of the children. He further stated that six children were considered below 14 years in their age and three children were above 14 years in their age. He further stated that Labour Inspector on behalf of the labour department issued notice to the occupier of the premises from where these children were rescued. He further stated that notice to one occupier of the premises namely M/s Naresh Tea Stall from where a child namely Santosh aged about 13 years rescued was issued on 31.08.2012 by Labour Inspector and photocopy of the same was attested by him also given to the IO of this case. He further stated that Proprietor of M/s Naresh Tea Stall namely accused Naresh Kumar Sharma (deceased) had deposited Rs 20,000/- and Rs. 2000/- vide PO no. 908726 and PO no 908727 against the notice of the Labour Department. He further stated that the said deposition was informed to the SDM Punjabi Bagh vide letter dated 03.09.2012. He further stated that Jatin Miglani on behalf of M/s Jatin Upper Plot no. 102, Peeragarhi Delhi from where two children were rescued but he was unable to tell their names deposited the amount of Rs. 7640/- vide DD no. 009498 and the amount Rs 2700/- vide DD entry no. 009499 for the rescued children. The photocopy of notice issued to Sh. Jatin Miglani, Proprietor of M/s Jatin Uppre is Marked 1/B. He further stated that the application given on behalf of Jatin Miglani while depositing the aforementioned amount to the labour department is marked as Mark 1/C. He further stated that the photocopy of DD No. 009498 and 009499 are Ex.PW1/E and Ex.PW1/F respectively bearing his attesting signatures at point A. He further stated that Deenu, Proprietor of M/s RK Industries at SRS-145, Peeragarhi FIR No: 218/12 State v. Naresh Kumar Sharma & Ors. Page 4/36 Ravi Dass Mohalla, Peeragarhi, had deposited the amount of Rs 5,020 vide DD no 908746, Rs. 26,700/ vide DD no. 908748, Rs. 5,320/- vide DD no. 908754, Rs 1,00,000/- vide DD no 908720, Rs. 4,520/- vide DD no. 908747, Rs. 7020/- vide DD no 904750 Rs 26,700/- vide DD no 908752, drawn on Punjab National Bank against the notice given by the Labour Department. The photocopies of all the aforementioned DDs are collectively Ex.PW1/G. He further stated that he was there in the raid but did not identify the accused persons. He further stated that the amount was deposited in respect of the rescued children and their names mentioned in the notice marked as Mark 1/D. He further stated that the six children were rescued from M/s R.K. Industries but one child was considered above 14 years in his age and the amount was asked to deposit accordingly.
6. In his cross-examination, he has deposed that he reached the spot on 31.08.2012 consequent to the meeting of District Task Force to rescue the children. He further stated that District Task Force used to have meeting on 10 th of each month to rescue the children from the concerned area. He further stated that they only make board decisions in the meeting to held raid in the area of a particular police station. He further stated that on 31.08.2012, he reached the SDM office around 10.30-10.45 AM. He further stated that when he reached the SDM Office, Mr. Neeraj Sharma (Labour Inspector), Sh. Sanjiv Yadav (Labour Inspector), Mr. Rajesh from BBA NGO, there were a number of other persons with Mr. Rajesh. He further stated that generally they follow the NGO workers to reach the location, even on that day prior to leaving SDM Office, he did not know the exact location where they were proceeding, they were following the car of NGO workers. He further stated that he was in the car of SDM Sh. Hukum Chand. He further stated that there were 3-4 other persons in the same. He further stated that from SDM Office they first reached at unauthorised industrial area in Peeragarhi. He further stated that he remained near the car of SDM did not go in any of the factory where raid was conducted. He further FIR No: 218/12 State v. Naresh Kumar Sharma & Ors. Page 5/36 stated that they took 1-1.30 hour in that area from there they returned back to SDM Office Punjabi Bagh and failed to recall who else was there with him near the car. He further stated that all the written proceedings were conducted at SDM Office Panjabi Bagh. He further stated that he had not signed on any document either at the spot or in the SDM office.
7. PW-2 Sh. Hukum Chand has deposed that on 31.08.2012. He further stated that he was posted as Sub Divisional Magistrate, Punjabi Bagh. He further stated that on information of Bachpan Bachao Andolan regarding some minor children were working in Peeragarhi village in various establishments. He further stated that a raid was conducted with the assistance of Labour Department, representatives of NGO and police department, from there nine children were rescued from the three establishments. He further stated that out of which six were below fourteen years and three were between fourteen to eighteen years as their age was assessed by the panel of doctors at DDU Hospital who were called for this purpose. He further stated that thereafter, the custody of rescued children were given to SHO PS Mianwali Nagar and they were directed to take necessary action and for the registration of FIR and direction order is Ex.PW2/A bearing his signature at point A.
8. In his cross examination, he has deposed that he does not know the time when the information was given to him by the representative namely Sh. Amardeep of NGO Bachpan Bachao Andolan. He further stated that before going at the spot, no information was reduced into writing as firstly they approached towards Peeragarhi. He further stated that the representatives of NGO and Labour Department were called to SDM Office Nangloi. He further stated that he had called them. He further stated that apart from officials from police department there were 20-25 persons in the raiding party including officials of Labour Department and NGO. He further stated that the raiding party reached the spot in 2-3 different cars. He further stated that one or two of the cars were from police department and one was from their department. FIR No: 218/12 State v. Naresh Kumar Sharma & Ors. Page 6/36 He further stated that they had called the doctors from DDU Hospital at the spot for conducting the age verification of rescued children. He further stated that generally they request the doctors to join at spot in writing. He further stated that he had gone inside the enterprises from where the children were rescued. He further stated that he remained at the spot for about 2-2 ½ hours for conducting the proceedings. He further stated that the rescued children were ascertained by all staff members. He further stated that when the staff members from the DDU hospital reached at the spot, the proceedings regarding age assessment were done in writing at the spot it took about 1 hour in ascertaining the age of the rescued children by the concerned doctor. He further stated that he had not seen whether blood samples were taken by the doctors or not as the doctors were sitting in a separate room in their office. He further stated that no photography and videography was done at the spot. He further stated that written proceedings was conducted by him at his office due to the nuisance created by the public persons on the spot.
9. PW-3 Inspector Rajesh Kumar has deposed that on that day at around 11 :00 AM, he along with SDM Punjabi Bagh, official staff of Labour Department as well as police official of Mianwali Nagar reached at Village Peeragarhi. He further stated that from different places/premises of village Peeragarhi nine children were rescued and thereafter he returned at PS. He further stated that on the same day, he received a complaint from the office of SDM Punjabi Bagh and he made endorsement on the same and present case FIR was registered against three persons. He further stated that thereafter, the investigation was marked to SI Sandeep Kumar. He further stated that his statement U/s 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded by the IO in the present case. He further stated that the present case FIR was registered against the accused persons namely FIR No: 218/12 State v. Naresh Kumar Sharma & Ors. Page 7/36 Naresh Kumar Sharma (deceased), Vinod Bhardwaj and Jatin Mighiani.
10. In his cross-examination, he deposed that the accused persons are not mentioned on the statement which is already exhibited as Ex.PW2/A. He further stated that he remained along-with rescue team at about 4 hours. He further stated that no written document was prepared by him at the spot, however, the officials of SDM office did some written work and he had not signed any document there.
11. PW-4 Sh. Rajesh Kumar Sharma has deposed that he was working as member with an NGO named Bachpan Bachao Andolan for past 15 years. He further stated that on 31.08.2012 under the supervision of SDM, Punjabi Bagh and officials of Labour Department namely Amardeep, police officials from Mianwali Nagar and member of above stated NGO visited the village Prepragathi to rescue the children who were working in shoe making factory. He further stated that on 31.08.2012 at about 11.00 am, the operation with respect to rescue the children were conducted. He further stated that in the operation total 9 children were rescued from three different premises in the Village Peeragarhi. He further stated that after rescuing the children, all children were taken to the office of SDM Punjabi Bagh, where from the rescued children were taken before Child Welfare Committee. He further stated that the medical examination of all the rescued children was conducted. He further stated that after conducting the above said proceedings, all the rescued children were sent to children home. He further stated that an operation sheet was prepared by the SDM, FIR No: 218/12 State v. Naresh Kumar Sharma & Ors. Page 8/36 Punjabi Bagh and he has signed the same and the photographs of said operation sheet is already on record, the same is Ex.PW4/A bearing his signature at point A.
12. In his cross examination, he deposed that the intimation regarding employment of children was already with the Task Force Committee of District West, Punjabi Bagh before 2 or 3 days of dated 31.08.2012. He further stated that presently he was working as Programme Officer in Bachpan Bachao Andolan. He further stated that he went in the office of SDM, Punjabi Bagh. He further stated that when he reached in the office of SDM, Punjabi Bagh, police officials of PS Mianwali Nagar and officials of Labour Department were already present. He further stated that they were 10-15 in numbers. He further stated that at around 11:45 am. He further stated that they all left the office of SDM, Punjabi Bagh for rescue operation. He further stated that they all reached at the spot in different vehicles. He further stated that all team members reached the premises collectively. He further stated that in all premises, different number of employees were working, however, he could not tell the exact number of employees. He further stated that the children were engaged in shoe making and also in stitching the same. He further stated that the engaged children and employees were making rexine and leather shoes. He further stated that medical examination of rescued children was conducted in the office of SDM Punjabi Bagh by 2-3 medical officers of DDU Hospital. He further stated that all the rescued children were of the age of 10 to 16 years. He further stated that he got the FIR No: 218/12 State v. Naresh Kumar Sharma & Ors. Page 9/36 information vide proformas filled by the rescued children and also by the opinion of Medical Officer who conducted medical examination of rescued children. He further stated that all the employers of premises where from children were rescued were identified at the spot by the police and they were also taken to office of SDM, Pujabi Bagh. All the team members remained at the spot for about 30 minutes and thereafter returned in the office of SDM, Punjabi Bagh. He further stated that they remained in the office of SDM, Punjabi Bagh till 5-6 pm. He further stated that the officials of CWC came in the office of SDM, Punjabi Bagh in the noon time. He further stated that he was a witness in 10-15 cases of rescued children operation including the present case.
13. PW-5 Sh. Jitender @ Sudhir has deposed that he was working in a shoe factory as a labour. He further stated that on one day, some officials from Labour Department had come in their factory but he had run away from there After 4-5 days, above said official came again in their factory and rescued him and others from the factory who were working with him in the said factory. He further stated that they took them to PS Nangloi. He further stated that they also took them to one another place but He further stated that they took them to the Mukti Ashram and he remained there for about 25 days. Thereafter, he was made free and he went to his house. He further stated that the property number from where he was rescued is SR- 145, Peeragarhi. He further state that he was working as thread cutter. He further stated FIR No: 218/12 State v. Naresh Kumar Sharma & Ors. Page 10/36 that he had worked there for one year. He further stated that his working hours were about 09.00 am to 05:00 pm. He further stated that in a week, sometime he had worked for 8 hours and sometime for 12 hours. He further stated that when he was in factory, the owner was known to him as Deenu. He further stated that he was working on the salary of Rs. 2500/-. He further stated that only one month salary was pending due to his rescue on the last date of the month. He further stated that owner of the factory asked him to work for long hours. He further stated that he also used to work in the night. He further stated that no leave was allowed to him by the owner. He further stated that owner of the factory did not provide them food. He further stated that police official rescued him from the factory on 31.08.2012. He further stated that after rescuing him, police official recorded his statement.
14. In his cross-examination, he deposed that he did not have any appointment letter. He further stated that accused persons had maintained a register for the presence of workers. He further stated that prior to working in this factory, he was not working anywhere. He further stated that before joining the factory, he was residing in his native place in U.P. He further stated that at that time, his father was working as daily labourer but he did not know the wages of his father. He further stated that there are seven members in his family. He further stated that the wages of his father was not sufficient to run his family. He further stated that therefore, he had decided to do work in order to support his family. He further stated that he alongwith his father FIR No: 218/12 State v. Naresh Kumar Sharma & Ors. Page 11/36 came to Delhi at the instance of his maternal uncle (mama) who was living in Delhi at that time and assured them to provide some work in Delhi. He further stated that after coming to Delhi, he alongwith his father shifted to rented accommodation at Jwalapuri, Delhi on monthly rent of Rs. 2700/- excluding electricity and water charges of Rs. 200/- per month. He further stated that his father started working as labourer. He further stated that he was not aware about the wages of his father. He further stated that he alongwith other boys went to the factory in search of work and he found the work in factory. He further stated that during his employment in the factory, he used to reside at rented accommodation in Jwalapuri. He further stated that the distance between the factory and rented accommodation is about 1-2 km and he used to go to the factory on foot. He further stated that upper part of the shoe was manufactured in the factory. He further stated that Sunday was the holiday. (Vol. But when owner had called him to work on Sunday, he went to the factory). He further stated that lunch break was of 30 minutes. He further stated that presently, he was working as daily labourer and was residing on a rented accommodation and his daily wages is about Rs. 200-300. He further stated that since his financial condition was not good.
15. PW-6 Abdul Rehman has deposed that he was working in a shoe factory as a thread cutter. He further stated that on one day, some police officials rescued him and other children from the factory and police official took him to the Mukti Ashram FIR No: 218/12 State v. Naresh Kumar Sharma & Ors. Page 12/36 where he resided for one month and after one month he has gone to his own house. He further stated that Vinod Bhardwaj @ Deenu was his owner. He further stated that he used to work for 12 hours and he used to get Rs 1700/- as salary. He further stated that he had not received one month salary. He further stated that he had pain in his back. He further stated that he was rescued from the factory by the police on 31.08.2012.
16. In his cross-examination, he has deposed that he regularly received his monthly salary from the owner of the factory. He further stated that he did not receive the salary of one month due to his rescuing on the last day of the month. He further stated that he used to reside in Peeragarhi area on rent of Rs. 2500-3000/- at the time of his employment in the said factory. He further stated that 2-3 persons belonged to his native village were also residing with him in the rented premises. He further stated that he was not working anywhere else prior to get the employment in the aforesaid factory. He further stated that Sunday was the holiday in the factory. He further stated that the working time of factory was about 09.00 am to 05.00 pm. He further stated that lunch break of one hour was given to him by the employer. He further stated that he worked in the said factory for about 2-2.5 months. He further stated that they are three persons in the family i.e. himself, his mother and his sister. He further stated that he was the eldest in the family. He further stated that when his father died, he was of 13 years of age and none was earning member in the family FIR No: 218/12 State v. Naresh Kumar Sharma & Ors. Page 13/36 after death of his father. He further stated that he was working in the factory due to his financial condition out of his free will. He further stated that he has no document to prove that he worked in the factory in question.
17. PW-7 Sh. Pintu has deposed that in the year of 2012, he was working in a shoe factory as labourer. He further stated that the owner of the factory used to give Rs. 2500/- per month and he used to work 8 hours a day. He further stated that he also used to give money to the police for employing the children/under age person in the factory. He further stated that some altercations took place between the employer of the factory and the police personnel on account of money. He further stated that on this, the police official called at the PS Nangloi that his employer had employed minors in the factory. He further stated that police came from Nangloi and many children were rescued including himself. He further stated that property number from where he was rescued is SKS, SR-145, Peeragarhi. However, he was doing the stitching work on the shoes. (Vol. He used to work as labourer). He further stated that the accused has not made payment of one month salary to him. Again said he had not paid two month's salary to him. He further stated that due to excess working, he had been suffering bodily pain. He further stated that he used to carry his lunch from home. He further stated that the supervisor of the factory used to direct him and his co-workers to do more work. He further stated that he was not given weekly holidays. He further stated that on 31.08.2012, he was rescued by the police from the factory. FIR No: 218/12 State v. Naresh Kumar Sharma & Ors. Page 14/36
18. In his cross-examination, he deposed that he did not work in any factory prior to working in the above said factory. He further stated that they were nine members in his family including himself, his father, his mother, his grand-mother and five brothers. He further stated that his father was engaged in the work as a farmer in the fields of some other persons by taking the same on rent. He further stated that he was the eldest son in his family. He further stated that at the relevant time, there was flood in his village and all the agriculture products were vanished due to flood. He further stated that his father used to earn hardly Rs. 5000-10,000/- per month. He further stated that the income of his father was quite less and the same was not sufficient to maintain the entire family. He further stated that he himself joined the factory to support his family from his free will. He further stated that the accused used to pay him regularly. He further stated that the work of stitching and thread cutting was done in the factory but he used to do the work of thread cutting. He further stated that he took treatment for body pain from his village. He further stated that he does not have any such document in this regard. He further stated that he had not shown any document of treatment to the police. He further stated that police took him for medical examination to the hospital. He further stated that he had stated to the doctor who examined him that there was pain in his stomach. He further stated that there was holiday on every Sunday. He further stated that he was residing at Meera Bagh in under constructed building without rent at the relevant time. He further stated that he FIR No: 218/12 State v. Naresh Kumar Sharma & Ors. Page 15/36 has not seen the accused paying money to the police officials regarding deputing the minor children in the factory.
19. PW-8 Sh. Prabhat has deposed he used to work as helper in the factory which manufacture shoe and sandal. He further stated that the factory was located in the Peeragarhi Village. He further stated that he worked there for about 1 month. He further stated that he used to work every day from 09.00 am to 09.00 pm. He further stated that one Deenu used to come to the factory to pay him the wages which was Rs. 2000/- per month. He further stated that there were about 6 other persons who used to work in the said factory. He further stated that he used to get leave on every Sunday and on the gazatted holidays. He further stated that he was called by the police with regard to this case during the course of his working in the first month itself.
20. In his cross-examination, he has deposed that no appointment letter was issued to him. He further stated that prior to this job, he had never worked anywhere. He further stated that he has a family of 6 members. He further stated that his father used to run a cycle repairing job in Delhi. He further stated that his family used to stay in the area of Nihal Vihar near 50 Foota Road in a rented house, rent of Rs. 1500/-. He further stated that his father used to earn Rs. 5000-6000/- per month at that time. He further stated that he is the eldest one in his family. He further stated that he used to come to the factory on foot. He further stated that police only interrogated him, FIR No: 218/12 State v. Naresh Kumar Sharma & Ors. Page 16/36 however, he could not say whether his statement was recorded or not. He further stated that he was working in the said factory due to financial crisis in his family with his free choice. He further stated that his working hours were for 8 hours. He further stated that he was asked to work for another 4 extra hours. He further stated that he used to work voluntarily for extra hours and he was paid extra for those hours.
21. PW-9 Sh. Mithoon S/o Rajender Dutt has has deposed that he was basically from Bihar. He further stated that he came to Delhi in the year 1999. He further stated that he used to work as helper in the factory which manufacture shoe and sandal. He further stated that the factory was located in the Peeragarhi Village. He further stated that he worked there for about 1 month. He further stated that he used to work every day from 09.00 am to 09.30 pm. He further stated that one Deenu used to come to the factory to pay him the wages which was Rs. 4000/- per month. He further stated that he used to work for 8 hours per day. He further stated that there were other persons who used to work in the said factory. He further stated that he was not allowed to take a leave on his asking.
22. In his cross-examination, he deposed that no appointment letter was issued to him. Prior to this job, he had never worked anywhere. He further stated that he has a family of 8 members. He further stated that his father is an agriculturist in Bihar. He further stated that his family used stay in Bihar that time. He further stated that he could not tell about the earning of his father from agriculture. He further stated that FIR No: 218/12 State v. Naresh Kumar Sharma & Ors. Page 17/36 his father and his elder brother used to earn livelihood for the family in Bihar. He further stated that at that time, he was residing in Nangloi with his cousin brother and he used to come to the factory on foot. He further stated that he was working in the said factory due to financial crisis in his house with his free choice. He further stated that he used to work on the machine for sewing the uppers. He further stated that he and his co-workers used to have holiday on Sunday.
23. PW-10 Sh. Anish has deposed he came to Delhi in the year 2009. He further stated that he used to work as helper in the factory which manufacture shoe and sandal. He further stated that the factory was located in the Peeragarhi Village. He further stated that he worked there for about 1 year. He further stated that he used to work every day from 09.00 am to 09.00 pm. He further stated that one Deenu used to come to the factory to pay him the wages which was around Rs. 1800/- to 2000/- per month. He further stated that there were other persons who used to work in the said factory. He further stated that he was not allowed to take a leave on his asking, however, he and his co-workers themselves used to take leave on Sunday. He further stated that he was called by the police with regard to this case during the course of his working in the first month itself.
24. In cross-examination, he deposed that no appointment letter was issued to him. He further stated that prior to this job, he had never worked anywhere. He further stated that he has a family of 6 members. He further stated that his father was daily FIR No: 218/12 State v. Naresh Kumar Sharma & Ors. Page 18/36 wages worker in U.P. He further stated that he was the eldest son in his family. He further stated that his father used to earn Rs. 5000-6000/- per month at that time. He further stated that he used to live in Meerabagh with his family in an under construction house at that time and he used to come to the factory on foot. He further stated that he was working in the said factory due to financial crisis in his house with his free choice. He further stated that he used to do all the work which was instructed to do. He further stated that in case, he used to work more than 8 hours, then over time dues was paid to him. He further stated that he used to do over time with him own will to earn more wages due to his financial crisis. He further stated that he was interrogated by the police. He further stated that he was retained in rescue home for 21 days. He further stated that he and his co-workers used to have holiday on Sunday.
25. PW-11 Manish Sharma has deposed that on 31.08.2012, he was posted as a Manager, Mukti Ashram, Ibrahimpur, Delhi. He further state that on that day, IO brought 9 children in Mukti Ashram after child rescue operation. He further stated that he admitted the said children in Mukti Ashram. He further stated that during the counseling of said children, they told him that they were working in very bad condition like bonded labour.
26. In his cross-examination, he deposed that he did not accompany IO during child rescue operation. He further stated that IO did not record his statement. He further stated that he told the IO that children apprised him that they were working in FIR No: 218/12 State v. Naresh Kumar Sharma & Ors. Page 19/36 very bad condition like bonded labour.
27. PW-12 SI Rajender Singh has deposed that on 31.08.2012, he was posted at PS Mianwali Nagar as HC and working as a DO. He further stated that on that day, he received the rukka endorsed by SHO. He further stated that on the basis of the same, he registered present case FIR Ex. PW12/A. He further stated that he also made endorsement on rukka which is Ex. PW12/B. He further stated that after registration of FIR, he handed over copy of FIR and original rukka to SI Sandeep for investigation.
28. PW-13 Pintu has deposed that in the year 2012, he came from his village at Peeragarhi. He further stated that he was employed in the shoe manufacturing factory at Peeragarhi and the owner of the factory was Jatin/accused. He further stated that he worked in the said factory for about 10-15 days. He further stated that at that time, he was 14 years old. He further stated that he took advance of Rs. 300/- from the contractor. He further stated that thereafter, he did not receive any amount/salary from the owner. He further stated that his salary was decided Rs 200/- per day. He further stated that his working in said factory was not good as there was smell of chemical in the said factory.
29. In his cross-examination, he deposed that there is no appointment letter regarding his employment in the said factory. He further stated that he did not work anywhere before working in the said factory. He further stated that he came to Delhi FIR No: 218/12 State v. Naresh Kumar Sharma & Ors. Page 20/36 alongwith his co-villagers to work due to weak financial condition. He further stated that after coming to Delhi, he was employed after 5 days. He further stated that he used to stay in a rented room alongwith his co-villagers. He further stated that the said rented room was at a distance of 10 minutes walk from the factory. He further stated that his parents used to earn 4000-5000/- at that time from labour work. He further stated that there were 6 members in his family at that time including him. He further stated that he used to cut the extra threads from the shoes in factory with the help of scissor manually. He further stated that he did not give his date of birth certificate to the IO. He further stated that he was employed in the said factory through contractor. He further stated that he was working in the said factory on his own due to weak financial condition of his family. He further stated that it was decided that he will receive his salary after month.
30. PW-14 Inspector Ajay Kumar Gupta has deposed that on 20.05.2013, he was posted as Sl at PS Mianawali Nagar Delhi. He further stated that on that day, the present case file was marked to him for further investigation. He further stated that during investigation he recorded the statement of two witnesses namely Sonu and Jai Singh, thereafter, he filed the chargesheet.
31. PW-15 Inspector Sandeep Kumar has deposed that on 31.08.2012, he was posted as SI at PS Mianawali Nagar Delhi. He further stated that on that day one raiding team was prepared consisting SDM Punjabi Bagh, Staff of Labour FIR No: 218/12 State v. Naresh Kumar Sharma & Ors. Page 21/36 Department Staff of Bachpan Bachao Andolan including him. He further stated that the raid was conducted at Peeragarhi under the supervision of SDM Punjabi Bagh. He further stated that they rescued 9 children who were working as a labour, from that area. He further stated that thereafter, SDM Punjabi Bagh handed over the custody of those children to the SHO Mianwali Nagar. He further stated that SHO Mianawali directed him to produce the above mentioned children in CWC office. He further stated that he produced the children in the CWC office. He further stated that the attested copy of his letter to the Chairman of Nirmal Chhaya (CWC office) Hari Nagar is exhibited as Ex.PW15/A bearing his signature at point A. He further stated that in the meanwhile, the present case was registered on the complaint of SDM Punjabi Bagh and the case was marked to him for investigation. He further stated that after visiting the office of CWC, he came back to the PS alongwith the above mentioned 9 children. He further stated that he left the children in the custody of one constable to give them food. He further stated that till that time, he alongwith SDM Punjabi Bagh went to the spot of incident i.e. SRS 145 and SRS 102 Peeragarhi and prepared the site plan at the instance of SDM Punjabi Bagh, the same is exhibited as Ex.PW15/B bearing his signature at point A. He further stated that thereafter, he recorded the statement of the witnesses namely Sh. Hukum Chand, SDM Punjabi Bagh, Amardeep (Labour Inspector), Rajesh Kumar (BBA), Anil Kaushik, SHO Pachim Vihar and Rajesh Kumar, SHO Mianawali Nagar, under Section 161 Cr P.C. FIR No: 218/12 State v. Naresh Kumar Sharma & Ors. Page 22/36 He further stated that thereafter, he came back to the PS and went to Mukti Aashram to drop the children. He further stated that the attested letter to the Manager of Mukti Aashram, Ibrahimpur, Delhi for handing over the children written by him attached with the judicial file, the same is exhibited as Ex.PW15/C bearing his signature at point A. He further stated that on 26.09.2012, he moved an application in the office of CMO, Forensic Department, SGM Hospital to fix the date for the ossification test of 7 children and the date was fixed for 27.09.2012, the same is Ex.PW15/D bearing his signature at point A. He further stated that on 27.09.2012, the ossification test of four children had got done by HC Manoj in Sanjay Gandhi Hospital and he collected the age proof of remaining 5 children from Mukti Aashram. He further stated that thereafter, he went to Mukti Aashram and recorded the statement of all the children mentioned above under Section 161 Cr.P.C. He further stated that on 30.10.2012, he collected the report of the ossification done of four children. He further stated that on 08.11.2012, all the accused persons namely Jatin Miglani, Deenu @ Vinod Bharadwaj and Naresh Sharma (deceased) got anticipatory bail. He further stated that thereafter on the next day, he arrested accused Deenu @ Vinod Bharadwaj and Naresh Sharma (deceased) formally, the same is Ex.PW15/E and Ex. PW15/F respectively both bearing his signature at point A. He further stated that both the accused persons were released there and then, thereafter, on 12.11.2012, he arrested accused Jatin Miglani formally vide memo Ex.PW15/G bearing his signature at point FIR No: 218/12 State v. Naresh Kumar Sharma & Ors. Page 23/36 A, thereafter, he got transferred from PS Mianawali Nagar and he deposited the file with the MHC(R). He further stated that he had collected the ossification reports of four children from Sanjay Gandhi Hospital and the report was got collected. He further stated that he also got collected the reports of remaining children. He further stated that the bone ossification report of the children namely Pintu Kumar, Santosh Kumar, Abdul Rehman, Mithun Yadav is mark as Mark A, Santosh Kumar is Mark-B. He further stated that Abdul Rehman is Mark-C and Mithun Yadav is Mark-D. He further stated that the copy of the age proof of five children namely Prabhat, Jitender. Bimlesh, Dheeraj Kumar and Pintoo are marked as Mark-E (colly) which further stamped of Karyalya Mukti Aashram Bachpan Bachaao Aandolan at point A on each page.
32. In his cross-examination, he deposed that he does not know whether any written document was prepared prior to forming the raiding team. He further stated that the raiding team was formed in the PS Mianwali Nagar. He further stated that he does not know the DD entry number but the departure entry must be done while leaving the PS. He further stated that they reached at the spot by walking. The raid was done in 8 to 10 premises/factories. He further stated that the raid was done randomly. He further stated that no document could be prepared at that time from where no child labour was rescued. He further stated that at the time of rescue of the child labour, he did not prepare any document. Vol. SDM Punjabi Bagh prepared FIR No: 218/12 State v. Naresh Kumar Sharma & Ors. Page 24/36 certain documents and he was not aware of all those documents. He further stated that it took around 1 ½ hour in visiting CWC office and coming back to PS. He further stated that he was not aware whether SDM Punjabi Bagh had asked any public person to join the raiding team. He further stated that he came back to PS at around 11:30 PM after dropping the rescued children in the Mukti Aashram. He has deposed that the ossification test with respect to these children was not conducted in his presence. He further stated that he did not physically went to the respective schools to verify the age of the children given in Mark-E (Colly). He further stated that till the matter was with him, he collected only the age proofs. He further stated that he does not know whether X-Ray films of the children, whose ossification test was conducted, was filed by him with the charge sheet.
33. PW-16 Anil Kumar Chauhan has deposed that he was the member of the raiding team formed by Sh. Hukam Chand, SDM Punjabi Bagh. He further stated that the team comprised of Sh. Amardeep Singh (Inspecting Officer), Sh. Rajesh Sharma (NGO Bachpan Bachao Andolan), Sh. Rajesh Kr.(SHO MWN) & staff of PSS (PV & MWN). He further stated that on the direction of SDM for inspection of the place i.e. village- Peeragarhi where minor children were working in various establishment. He further stated that he alongwith the team went there and did the inspection. He further stated that 6 minor children were found working in a shoe making factory at SRS 145 Peeragarhi owned by Mr. Dinesh Bhardwaj and 2 minor children were found working FIR No: 218/12 State v. Naresh Kumar Sharma & Ors. Page 25/36 in upper shoe making factory at SRS 102 Peeragarhi owned by Mr. Miglanı & 1 minor child was found working in a tea shop at Peeragarhi owned by Mr. Naresh. He further stated that all were of the age group of around 12-14 years. He further stated that the raiding team members inquired about the wages given to the children to which they got information that they were given Rs. 1500 to 3500 per month and working hours were 8-12 hours. He further stated that all the children were found working in a hazardous condition. He further stated that all the children were rescued and handed over to IO of the case. He further stated that thereafter he returned back to the PS Paschim Vihar.
34. In his cross-examination, he deposed that he has made the departure entry into the records before leaving the PS. He further stated that as he was the SHO of adjoining police station and raid was made in jurisdiction of PS MWN and he alongwith his staff merely went to the PS MWN to assist and to maintain Law and Order. He further stated that no medical examination of any rescued children was got conducted by the raiding team in his presence. He further stated that no document regarding the employment and there wages of children was collected by raiding team from the employer/establishment on the day of raid. He further stated that after recovery of above children they were handed over the police and thereafter they returned to their respective PS. He further stated that no written work was done by the raiding party in his presence. He further stated that he does not remember exact FIR No: 218/12 State v. Naresh Kumar Sharma & Ors. Page 26/36 time when he and whole raiding team left the spot scene of crime however, it might be afternoon. He further stated that he did never join the investigation except the inspection by the raiding team. He further stated that no such raid was conducted and no such children were rescued from the premises of the accused persons.
35. PW-16 Anju Bhatia has deposed that she was working as an HOD Radiologist since 2021 and in the year 2012, she was working as specialist Radiologist in SGM hospital Mangolpuri. She further stated that she had worked with Dr. Amitabh Basin and Dr. Ashutosh Joshi. She further stated that in the year 2012, as per her information both the said doctors were working in the radiologist department as Dr. Amitabh Bhasin was HOD and Dr. Ashutosh Joshi was a SR. She further stated that she was well acquainted with the hand writing and signature of both the above said doctors and she could identify the signature and the handwriting. She further stated that as per the document mark-A-D, the signature of abovesaid doctors are there at point B (Dr. Joshi) and A (Amitabh Bhasin). The X-ray reports are marked as mark Z, Z-1, Z-2 and Z-3, the signature of abovesaid doctors are there at point A and B.
36. In her cross-examination, she deposed that both the doctors mentioned above have already left the hospital. She further stated that the last known address of the above mentioned doctors may be available at the hospital. She further stated that she does not know the contents of the documents prepared by the hospital.
37. PW-17 Indermeet Singh has deposed that on 30.10.2012, he was posted as FIR No: 218/12 State v. Naresh Kumar Sharma & Ors. Page 27/36 Chairman Medical Board at SGM hospital. He further stated that on that day he opined the bone age determination test's documents pertaining to MLC Mark A-D all bearing his signature at point C.
38. In his cross-examination, he deposed that he opined on the basis of reports given by the dental surgeon and radiologist.
39. The accused persons admitted FIR No. 218/2012 dt 31.08.2012, certificate u/s 65 B of IE Act which are Ex.A1, Ex.A2, MLC of Abdul Rehman is Ex.A3, MLC of Pintu Kumar is Ex.A4, MLC of Santosh is Ex.A5 and MLC of Mithun Yadav Ex.A6.
40. It is a settled proposition of criminal law that prosecution is supposed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt by leading reliable, cogent and convincing evidence. Further it is a settled proposition of criminal law that in order to prove its case, prosecution is supposed to stand on its own legs and it cannot derive any benefit whatsoever from the weaknesses, if any, of the defence of the accused persons. Further it is a settled proposition of criminal law that burden of proof of the version of the prosecution in a criminal trial throughout the trial is on the prosecution and it never shifts on to the accused persons. Also it is a settled proposition of criminal law that accused persons are entitled to the benefit of every reasonable doubt in the prosecution story and such reasonable doubt entitles the accused to acquittal.
41. I have heard Ld. APP for the State, Ld. Counsel for accused persons and have FIR No: 218/12 State v. Naresh Kumar Sharma & Ors. Page 28/36 carefully gone through the material on record.
42. The Juvenile Justice Act, 2000 ( hereinafter called as JJ Act for the sake of brevity) provides that :
Section 2 (k) "juvenile" or "child" means a person who has not completed eighteenth year of age;
Section 23. Punishment for cruelty to juvenile or child.--Whoever, having the actual charge of or control over, a juvenile or the child, assaults, abandons, exposes or wilfully neglects the juvenile or causes or procures him to be assaulted, abandoned, exposed or neglected in a manner likely to cause such juvenile or the child unnecessary mental or physical suffering shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or fine, or with both.
Section 26. Exploitation of juvenile or child employee.--Whoever ostensibly procures a juvenile or the child for the purpose of any hazardous employment keeps him in bondage and withholds his earnings or uses such earning for his own purposes shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.
43. The Child and Adolescent Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986 (hereinafter called as Child Labour Act for the sake of brevity) provides that :
Section 2
(i) "adolescent" means a person who has completed his fourteenth year of age but has not completed his eighteenth year.
(ii) "child" means a person who has not completed his fourteenth year of age or such age as may be specified in the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (35 of 2009), whichever is more;
(vi) "occupier", in relation to an establishment or a workshop, means the person who has the ultimate control over the affairs of the establishment or workshop Section 3. Prohibition of employment of children in any occupation and process.--FIR No: 218/12 State v. Naresh Kumar Sharma & Ors. Page 29/36
(1) No child shall be employed or permitted to work in any occupation or process.
(2) Nothing in sub-section (1) shall apply where the child,--
(a) helps his family or family enterprise, which is other than any hazardous occupations or processes set forth in the Schedule, after his school hours or during vacations;
(b) works as an artist in an audio-visual entertainment industry, including advertisement, films, television serials or any such other entertainment or sports activities except the circus, subject to such conditions and safety measures, as may be prescribed:
Provided that no such work under this clause shall effect the school education of the child.
Explanation.--For the purposes of this section, the expression,
(a) "family" in relation to a child, means his mother, father, brother, sister and father's sister and brother and mother's sister and brother;
(b) "family enterprises" means any work, profession, manufacture or business which is performed by the members of the family with the engagement of other persons;
(c) "artist" means a child who performs or practices any work as a hobby or profession directly involving him as an actor, singer, sports person or in such other activity as may be prescribed relating to the entertainment or sports activities falling under clause (b) of sub-section (2).
Section 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:FIR No: 218/12 State v. Naresh Kumar Sharma & Ors. Page 30/36
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 offence. (2) Whoever, having been convicted of an offence under section 3 or section 3A commits a like offence 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 offence under section 3 or section 3A, commits a like offence afterwards, he shall be punishable with a fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees.] (3) Whoever--
(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.
44. In the present case out of nine rescued children, seven children were examined and two children were dropped from array of witnesses. In the present case, the date of incident is 31-08-2011. The age of Abdul as per Mark D (as per age determination test) is opined to be between 14-16 years. The date of birth of Jitender is shown to be 25-05-2000 vide Mark-E (School Leaving Certificate). The age of Jitender on the date of incident comes down to 11 years. The date of birth of Pintu s/o Ram Khelawan is shown to be 03-02-2000. The same comes down to 11 years and 6 months. The date of birth of Parbhat is shown to be 27-11-2002 vide Mark-E (School Leaving Certificate). The age of Prabhat on the date of incident comes down to 8 years and 9 months. The age of Mithun Yadav as per Mark D (as per age determination test) is opined to be between 13-14 years. The age of Master Pintu s/o Sharma Mahto as per Mark D (as per age determination test) is opined to be between 12-14 years.
FIR No: 218/12 State v. Naresh Kumar Sharma & Ors. Page 31/36
45. It is clear from above that rescued children are covered under definition of section 2(K) of Juvenile Justice Act, 2000 and section 2 (ii) of Child and Adolescent Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986. Now this court will find out whether the necessary ingredients of section 23/26 of Juvenile Justice Act and section 3/14 of Child and Adolescent Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986 are met in the present case or not.
46. The accused persons have not led any evidence in the present case. The counsel for accused persons have relied upon the lacunae to be found in the case of prosecution. Let's found out if counsel for the accused persons have raised reasonable doubt in the present case to entail their acquittal.
47. PW-1 is the Assistant Labour commissioner. The raid is sufficiently proved from the testimony of PW-1 to 16. In the present case, PW 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 13 are minor rescued children. None of the rescued children have categorically stated that they were assaulted by the accused.
48. PW-5 i.e. Sh. Jitender has stated that he was working for 8 to 12 hours. He further stated that owner had called him to work on Sunday too. PW-6 has also asserted the same fact that he used to work for 12 hours and used to get Rs. 1700/- as salary. PW-6 further stated that he did not receive one month salary. PW-7 has stated that accused did not pay two months salary to PW-7. PW-7 further stated in his cross- examination that supervisor of the accused used to take work for 30 days but used to pay only for 15 days. PW-7 further stated that he suffered bodily pain due to excess work, however, he did not have any document for treatment taken from his village. PW-8 has also stated that he was working for 8 hours but he was asked to work for FIR No: 218/12 State v. Naresh Kumar Sharma & Ors. Page 32/36 another 4 extra hours. PW-9 has stated that he was not allowed to take leave on his asking. PW-10 has also stated that he used to do overtime.
49. It is clear from above para that children working in the factory were doing overtime. It is also clear that they were neglected in a manner which is likely to cause physical suffering to them. Just because there was no written agreement with the children it does not mean that rescued children were not employed there. None of the children have disputed the fact that they were not employed in the factory of accused persons.
50. This court finds the ingredients of section 23 of JJ Act, 2000 to be attracted against the accused persons in the present case.
51. In K V Anilkumar v State of Kerala, 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 605, CRL.MC NO. 980 OF 2023, Hon'ble High court of Kerala held that :
"7. To attract Sec.26 of the Act, the prosecution has to establish the following:
i. The employer procured the juvenile or the child for the purpose of hazardous employment.
ii. The employer kept him in bondage.
iii. The employer withheld his earnings or used such earning for his own purpose.
The legislature intended to make the acts of procuring a child for hazardous employment, keeping him in bondage and withholding his earnings punishable under Sec.26 of the Act. In Alice v State of Kerala, 2014 (2) KHC 106, this Court considered the meaning of the term "hazardous" contained in Sec.26 of the Act and held that the statute intended "hazardous" to indicate the risk and heaviness of the job which the age of the child cannot bear.
8. In Faisal (Supra) this Court observed that, in order to attract Sec.26 of the Act, the prosecution has to establish that the juvenile is employed for a hazardous job without making proper and adequate payment, wages or salary.FIR No: 218/12 State v. Naresh Kumar Sharma & Ors. Page 33/36
9. In Eliyas (Supra), following Faizal (Supra), this Court reiterated the legal position. Following Eliyas and Faizal (Supra), this Court in Prakash (Supra) held that, to bring home the offence under Sec.26 of the Act, the burden is upon the prosecution to establish that the juvenile was employed by the petitioner for doing some hazardous work without making adequate payment of salary or wages."
52. The word bondage is not defined in JJ Act or General Clauses Act. The word "Bondage" in defined in online Merriam Webster dictionary as I) a state of being bound usually by compulsion (as of law): such as a : SLAVERY, SERFDOM b: servitude or subjugation to a controlling person or force
53. Counsel for the accused persons has also argued that accused persons were not involved in any hazardous field. In the present case, there is no allegation of bondage against the accused persons. None of the rescued children have alleged that they worked as slaves. Once, the ingredient of bondage is not present then there is no point in discussing other ingredients of section 26 of JJ Act. This finds that section 26 of JJ Act is not attracted towards the accused persons.
54. Counsel for the accused persons has stated that child witnesses have stated the name of owner as Deenu. PW-5 has identified the owner of the factory as Deenu. PW-6 has identified the owner as Bhardwaj @ Deenu. PW-6 correctly identified the accused persons in the court. PW-7 also correctly identified accused Deenu in the court. It is apparent that accused Vinod Bhardwaj was also known as Deenu in the factory by the workers. This court does not find any dispute regarding identity of the accused persons. The submission is without merit.
55. PW-7 has stated that he has not seen Jatin Mighlani in the factory. Accused Jatin Mighlani has been identified by other rescued children I.e PW-6 and PW-13 (rescued children).
FIR No: 218/12 State v. Naresh Kumar Sharma & Ors. Page 34/36
56. Counsel for the accused persons has argued that the paper work and proceedings were done at the office and not at the spot. Even if we assume that paper work and proceedings were done at the office, it does not weakens the case of prosecution in any way. The law does not mandate that everything has to done at the spot of incident itself. Even otherwise, that is not a feasible thing to do on part of raiding party. There is no merit in this argument.
57. The raid in the present case is sufficiently proved from the testimony of witnesses particularly, the testimony of Assistant Labour commissioner, SDM Punjabi Bagh and member of NGO. More particularly, the testimonies of rescued children are sufficient to prove the raid on 31.08.2012.
58. Para 44 shows that children were below 14 years of age at the time of their employment. To attract section 3 of Child Labour Act, prosecution does not have to prove that nature of industry was hazardous. Mere employment of under age children below 14 years of age is an offence under the Act. The accused persons were not family members of the rescued children. The accused persons also did not employ the children in any entertainment or advertising industry. The provision is strict in its applicability. The burden is upon the employer to be careful in employment of children.
59. The counsel for the complainant NGO has argued that children were not even paid minimum wages. He has also filed the order of minimum wages prevailing at that time. Even if the undersigned takes judicial notice of the order of minimum wages, still no charge was framed against the accused persons under the non payment of Minimum Wages Act. The counsel for the complainant has also relied upon the FIR No: 218/12 State v. Naresh Kumar Sharma & Ors. Page 35/36 judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in People's Union for Democratic Rights and Ors. Vs Union of India AIR 1982 SC 1473. In para 23 of the judgement Hon'ble Supreme Court discussed about article 23 and concept of forced labor.
60. The State has been able to prove the offence against, the accused persons for violation of section 3 of the Child Labour Act. This court does not find the allegations of extortion/fallout with police officials to be true. No evidence has been led by accused persons in this regard.
61. On the basis of above discussion and findings, the charges against the accused Sh. Vinod Bhardwaj and Sh. Jatin Miglani under section 23 of Juvenile Justice Act and under section 3/14 of Child Labour Act stands proved. Both of them stands convicted for the offences accordingly. The prosecution has failed to proved the charge under section 26 of JJ Act.
62. Copy of this judgment be given to the convicts.
ANKIT Digitally
by ANKIT
signed
KARAN SINGH
Dictated & Announced (Ankit Karan
KARAN Date:
Singh)
in Open Court MM-08/West/Delhi
SINGH 2024.05.15
16:51:38 +0530
On 15.05.2024 15.05.2024
FIR No: 218/12 State v. Naresh Kumar Sharma & Ors. Page 36/36