Delhi District Court
Ms.Seema Bahl vs State on 11 December, 2015
1
IN THE COURT OF BHUPESH KUMAR
SPL. JUDGE, (PC ACT) CBI-01, (SOUTH)
SAKET COURTS : NEW DELHI
CR No.51/2015
Unique Case ID No. :02406R0257972015
Ms.Seema Bahl,
s/o Sh.Ashok Bahl,
r/o House No.180,
RPS Flats Sheikh Sarai,
Phase -I, New Delhi
....Revisionist
Vs.
State
... Respondent
Date of Institution :17.08.2015
Arguments Heard on:11.12.2015
Date of Decision:11.12.2015
ORDER
1. The present revision has been filed by the revisionist against the impugned order dated 29.05.2015 passed by the Ld.Trial Court vide which the application of revisionist to alter the charge was dismissed.
2. The notice of the revision was issued to the State.
Trial Court record was also summoned.
3. I have heard the arguments of Sh.Arpit Batra, ld.
Counsel for revisionist as well as Sh.Nishchal Singh. Ld. APP for State.
CR 51/2015 Bhupesh Kumar, Spl Judge (PC Act) CBI01/South/11.12.2015 2
4. Before proceeding ahead, here it is necessary to reproduce the brief facts of the matter as emerged from the trial court record.
On 21.01.2012, FIR u/s 23/26 of Juvenile Justice Act and 374 IPC was registered at PS Malviya Nagar on the complaint of complainant Ms.Priti Gupta a social worker of NGO Butterfuly against the accused Seema Bahl w/o Sh.Ashok Gupta r/o.180, RPS Flats, Sheikh Sarai, Phase-I, New Delhi. It was alleged against the accused that she being actual in charge of a female child aged about 10 years made her to work as domestic servant in her said house from morning to 10.00 p.m. for cleaning the house and utensils etc. After registration of the FIR, investigation of the matter was carried out. During investigation, the female child was medically examined, her statement u/section 164 Cr. P.C. was recorded, statement of witnesses were recorded and after completing the other formal investigation, the charges u/s 23/26 of Juvenile Justice Act, 374 IPC and 3/14 Child Labour Act and 16 Bounded Labour Act was filed against the accused.
Perusal of file further shows that order on charge was made on 10.01.2014 and formal charge u/Section 23 & 26 of JJ Act and 3/14 Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1985 was framed on 31.05.2014. Thereafter, the prosecution has examined three witnesses i.e. PW-1 Mr.Priti Gupta, PW-2 HC Gainda Lal and PW-3 Dr.M.K.Mittal.
On 27.03.2015, the accused/revisionist filed an application for alteration of charge which was dismissed by the CR 51/2015 Bhupesh Kumar, Spl Judge (PC Act) CBI01/South/11.12.2015 3 Ld.Trial Court vide impugned order dated 29.05.2015.
5. Ld. Counsel for accused has submitted that charges u/Section 23 & 26 of JJ Act are not made out against the accused because there is no material on record which shows that she was forced to do any hazardous work. It was further submitted that the salary of the child was used to pay her parents.
On the other hand, Ld. APP for State has submitted that the present revision petition is not maintainable to alter the charge or to discharge the accused u/Section 23/26 of JJ Act because the charge has already been framed long back and even three prosecution witnesses have been examined. It has been further contended that the appropriate stage for the revisionist was to challenge the order vide which charges were framed against him. But the revisionist has not availed the said opportunity and under the garb of the present application, the revisionist intend to challenge the order vide which the charges were framed against him.
6. Heard. Material perused.
It is admitted fact that the revisionist has not challenged the order on charge dated 10.01.2014 or framing of formal charge dated 31.05.2014.
The application dated 27.03.2015 moved by the revisionist before the Ld. Trial Court to alter the charge has been perused. In the said application, the revisionist has submitted that charges u/Section 23 & 26 of JJ Act are not made out against the revisionist, hence, charge may be altered.
CR 51/2015 Bhupesh Kumar, Spl Judge (PC Act) CBI01/South/11.12.2015 4 The careful scrutiny of the said application reveals that actually the revisionist seeks discharge for the offence u/Section 23 and 26 JJ Act. Hence, I find substance in the contention of Ld. APP for State that the revisionist under the garb of application, actually intends to challenge the order dated 10.01.2014 vide which order on charge was made against the accused or order dated 31.05.2014 vide which formal charges were framed.
However, further it has been found that the accused was charged for offence, inter alia, u/Section 23 & 26 of JJ Act. Before proceedings ahead, here it is necessary to reproduce Sections 23 & 26 of JJ Act, which are as under :-
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 willfully 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.
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.
In case Alice vs State of Kerala, 2014 SCC Online Ker 5375, Hon'ble High Court has, inter alia, held as under : -
On a perusal of the case records including the final report submitted by the police and the statements given by the minor girls to the police during investigation, CR 51/2015 Bhupesh Kumar, Spl Judge (PC Act) CBI01/South/11.12.2015 5 I find that the prosecution in this case has a definite allegation that the minor girls were found employed for some hard labour and domestic works. Whether it will amount to hazardous job will have to be decided by the trial court....... Employing a child below 14 years for any job mentioned in Part-A of the Schedule, to The Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act will attract prosecution under Section 3 of the said Act. of course, in such a prosecution under the said Act involving employment of children below 14 years, the court will not look into the nature of the job as to whether it is hazardous or not, or whether there is any element of exploitation. When a prosecution is brought under the Act, and when such prosecution is specifically under Section 26 of the Act, the prosecution can succeed only when there is a specific and definite allegation that the juvenile was found employed for some hazardous job, without making proper and adequate payment of wages/salary. The term "hazardous" indicates the risk and heaviness of the job, which the age of the child cannot bear. It need not always be some job causing threat to life. In this case, the definite and specific allegation of the prosecution is that minor the girls were found employed for some hard manual labour including domestic works, without making proper and adequate payment of wages/salary.......... Whether such allegations are true or false, or whether the petitioner had paid proper and adequate wages to the children, or whether the alleged employment is hazardous or not, will have to be decided by the trial court.
Reverting to the present matter, from perusal of material on record including statement of victim girl and complainant etc., it is observed that there are specific allegations that the victim girl was made to work from morning till late night by the accused in her house and that she was used to be beaten on committing any mistake and that she was not allowed to meet her parents etc. Whether working as domestic servant amounts to hazardous work or CR 51/2015 Bhupesh Kumar, Spl Judge (PC Act) CBI01/South/11.12.2015 6 not can be determined by the trial Court during trial only. The findings of the aforesaid judgment Alice vs State of Kerala (supra), are squarely applicable to the facts of the instant case.
7. In the light of above discussion, it is found that there was, prima facie, sufficient material on record to frame charge u/Section 23 & 26 of JJ Act and 3/14 of Child Labour (Prohibition & Regulation) Act 1986 against the accused. Under these circumstances, no reasonable ground is found to interfere with the impugned order of Learned Trial Court and to alter the charge. The revision is found to be without any merits and stands dismissed accordingly.
8. TCR be sent back to the Ld. Trial Court alongwith the copy of this order.
Revision file be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the Open Court (Bhupesh Kumar) Today on 11.12.2015 Spl. Judge (PC Act), CBI-01(South) Saket Courts : New Delhi.
CR 51/2015 Bhupesh Kumar, Spl Judge (PC Act) CBI01/South/11.12.2015