Telangana High Court
Chaga Mallikarjun Reddy vs High Court For The State Of Telangana on 12 June, 2025
Author: N.Tukaramji
Bench: N.Tukaramji
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI
CRIMINAL PETITION No. 11815 OF 2024
ORDER
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS, 2023'), seeking quashment of the proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.875 of 2020 on the file of the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Gadwal.
2. The petitioner is sole accused in the Calendar Case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 374 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'the I.P.C.'), Sections 3, 7, 8, 14 of the Child Labour (Prohibition And Regulation) Act, 1986 (for short 'the Act, 1986').
3. I have heard Mr.P.Vamsheedhar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, representing respondent No.1-State.
4. The case of the prosecution, in brief is that, on December 18, 2017, at approximately 11:30 hours, Respondent No. 2, accompanied by a specially constituted team, conducted a raid on the premises of Sri Laxmi Venkateswara Ginning and Processing Mills, located on the outskirts of Paramala Village in Gadwal Mandal. During the operation, fifteen (15) 2 NTR,J Crl.P.No.11815 of 2024 minors were discovered working within the establishment, in contravention of applicable child labour laws.
Subsequently, a criminal case was registered against the petitioner, who is identified as the owner and proprietor of the said ginning and processing mill. Following a comprehensive investigation, a charge sheet was filed, and the matter was formally taken on the file of the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Gadwal, assigned Calendar Case No. 875 of 2020.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the individuals alleged to be victims in the present case are all above the age of 14 years and, therefore, qualify as adolescents under the relevant legal framework. Consequently, he argued that the essential ingredients constituting the alleged offences are not satisfied in the present case, and thus, the continuation of proceedings against the petitioner would be untenable. Accordingly, he prayed for the quashment of the proceedings. Further pointed to an order passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court, in Criminal Petition No. 5307 of 2024, and pleaded that after considering similar allegations and examining the merits of the case, quashed the criminal proceedings instituted against the petitioners therein.
6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, in response, fairly conceded that in the authority cited by the petitioner--arising under analogous 3 NTR,J Crl.P.No.11815 of 2024 factual and legal circumstances--this Court had indeed quashed the proceedings against the petitioner therein.
7. I have perused the materials on record.
8. Before delving into the factual matrix and the merits of the present case, it is considered appropriate, for the sake of clarity and comprehensive understanding, to first reproduce the provisions corresponding to the alleged offences, as extracted hereunder:
Section 374 IPC :
"374. Unlawful compulsory labour.--Whoever unlawfully compels any person to labour against the will of that person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both."
Sections 3, 7, 8 and 14 of the Act, 1986 :
"3. Prohibition of employment of children in certain occupations and processes. - 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 workshop 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.
7. Hours and period of work.- (1) No child shall be required or permitted to work in any establishment in excess of such number of hours as may be prescribed for such establishment or class of establishments.
(2) The period of work on each day shall be so fixed that no period shall exceed three hours and that no child shall work for more than three hours before he has had an interval for rest for at least one hour.
(3) The period of work of a child shall be so arranged that inclusive of his interval for rest, under sub-section (2), it shall not be spread over 4 NTR,J Crl.P.No.11815 of 2024 more than six hours, including the time spent in waiting for work on any day.
(4) No child shall be permitted or required to work between 7 p.m. and 8 a.m. (5) No child shall be required or permitted to work overtime. (6) No child shall be required or permitted to work in any establishment on any day on which he has already been working in another establishment.
8. Weekly holidays.-Every child employed in an establishment shall be allowed in each week, a holiday of one whole day, which day shall be specified by the occupier in a notice permanently exhibited in a conspicuous place in the establishment and the day so specified shall not be altered by the occupier more than once in three months.
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 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 rupees or with both.
(2) "Whoever, having been convicted of an offence under section 3, commits a like offence afterwards, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to two years.
(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 NTR,J Crl.P.No.11815 of 2024 "Section 2 (ii) defines "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;"
9. The charge-sheet filed by the prosecution reveals that the fifteen children, identified as victims and witnesses, who were found at the establishment, were aged between 14 and 17 years at the time of the alleged incident. It is a matter of common understanding that, upon completion of a given year, an individual is considered to have attained that age. Accordingly, it is evident from the charge-sheet that all the said children had completed 14 years of age.
10. In light of the above, the applicability of Sections 3, 7, and 8 of the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986, becomes doubtful. As a corollary, the imposition of penalties under Section 14 of the said Act would also not arise.
11. Furthermore, with respect to the allegation under Section 374 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Unlawful Compulsory Labour), it is pertinent to note that none of the children or victims have stated, in their respective testimonies, that the petitioner/accused compelled them to engage in labour against their will. A plain reading of the statements recorded by the prosecution does not disclose any indication of coercion or compulsion by the petitioner.
6 NTR,J Crl.P.No.11815 of 2024
12. In the absence of any material to suggest that the children were subjected to forced labour by the petitioner, the prosecution of the accused under Section 374 IPC appears to be unsustainable. In such circumstances, the continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner would be an abuse of the process of law.
13. For the aforesaid reasons, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioner/accused in C.C. No. 875 of 2020 on the file of the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Gadwal, are hereby quashed.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
_______________ N.TUKARAMJI, J Date: 12.06.2025 svl