State Of Karnataka vs Shahid @ Mechanic Babu on 21 February, 2014

[Cites 1, Cited by 7]

Karnataka High Court

State Of Karnataka vs Shahid @ Mechanic Babu on 21 February, 2014

Bench: N.Ananda

                           1




  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

       DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2014

                       BEFORE

           THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANANDA

             CRIMINAL APPEAL No.789/2008

BETWEEN:

STATE OF KARNATAKA
LABOUR INSPECTOR                     ... APPELLANT

(BY SRI B VISWESWARAIAH, HCGP)


AND:

SHAHID @ MECHANIC BABU
S/O MAHABUB PASHA
M/s. SHAHID AUTOWORKS
# 1282, KONGADIYAPPA MAIN ROAD
DODDABALLAPUR.                       ... RESPONDENT

(BY SRI D K LAKSHMINARAYANA, ADV.)

      THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378(1) & (3)
CR.P.C., PRAYING TO GRANT LEAVE TO FILE AN APPEAL
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED
15.03.2008 IN C.C.NO.188/2007, PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL
CIVIL JUDGE (JR. DN.) & JMFC, DODDABALLAPUR          -
ACQUITTING THE RESPONDETNS/ACCUSED FOR AN OFFENCE
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 3 R/W 14(1) OF CHILD LABOUR
ACT, 1986 (ABOLITION AND CONTROL) ACT & ETC.

      THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                  2




                        JUDGMENT

The learned trial judge has acquitted the accused for violation of Section 3 r/w 14 (1) of the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986.

2. I have heard learned Government Advocate for the State.

3. It is the case of complainant that accused namely Shahid, being the proprietor of M/s.Shahid Auto Works had employed one Washim Akram aged about 13 years in M/s.Shahid Auto Works, Kongadiyappa Main Road, Doddaballapur. It was detected on 30.11.2006.

4. The learned trial judge on appreciation of evidence has held that complainant has failed to prove that accused was the owner of M/s.Shahid Auto Works. Therefore, it is not possible to hold that accused had employed the above said child.

5. The prosecution for the reasons not apparent on record, has not examined the aforestated child labour 3 namely Washim Akram. The primary evidence in proof of contravention should have been proved by examination of child labour namely Washim Akram.

6. The learned trial judge by noticing this lacunae in the evidence adduced by complainant has dismissed the appeal.

7. There are no reasons to interfere with the impugned judgment. The appeal is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE Np/-

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court