Delhi District Court
State vs Mohd. Shamim on 12 February, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SH. JOGINDER PRAKASH NAHAR
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE (FTC-01), CENTRAL
DISTRICT
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CNR No. DLCT01-003189-2017
SC No. 172/2017
FIR No. 689/2016
U/Sec. 304/370/374/34 IPC & 16 Bonded Labour Act, 3/14 Child
Labour Act & 75/79 JJ Act
P.S. Sarai Rohilla
STATE VERSUS MOHD. SHAMIM & ANR.
(i) SC No. of the case : 172/2017
(ii) Date of commission of offence : 17.11.2016
(iii) Name, parentage and address : 1. Mohd. Shamim
S/o Mohd. Ramjaan
R/o H. No. 337, Phase
I, Shahzada Bagh,
Inder Lok Delhi.
2. Noman
S/o Mohd. Taiyab
R/o Village Tarbadi,
PS Mahal Gaun,
District Araria Bihar.
(iv) Offence complained of : Section
304/370/374/34 IPC &
16 Bonded Labour Act
& 3/14 Child Labour
Act & 75/79 JJ Act
(v) Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
SC No.172/2017
FIR No.689//2016
P.S. Sarai Rohilla
State vs. Mohd. Shamim & Anr.
Page No.1 of 28
(vi) Final order : 12.02.2026
Date of Institution : 27.02.2017
Date of Judgment reserved on : 02.02.2026
Date of Judgment : 12.02.2026
JUDGMENT
BRIEF FACTS AND REASONS FOR DECISION :-
1. The present case was registered on the complaint of Sh.
Ajaun Tahjeeb vide complaint Ex. PW-6/A dated 17.11.2016. It is alleged in that complaint that since last two months he was working in the factory making toys. Sh. Mansoom and Sh. Jamshed/PW-10 were also working in the same factory alongwith him. The age of Sh. Mansoom and PW-10 was around 13 years. The accused no. 2 Noman had bought Sh. Mansoom and PW-10 from their village. Accused no. 2 Noman is resident of Village Tarbadi, Bihar and he had put Sh. Mansoom and PW-10 for employment in the factory owned by accused no. 1 Mohd. Shamim. It is further stated in Ex. PW-6/A that they used to work from 09:00 AM to 09:00 PM every day. Their monthly pay was Rs. 3,500/-. They were eating food in the same factory and they were also sleeping in the same factory. In the morning of 17.11.2016 Sh. Mansoom and PW-10 had suddenly lost their consciousness on which the complainant/PW-6 alongwith accused no. 1 had bought Sh.
SC No.172/2017FIR No.689//2016 P.S. Sarai Rohilla State vs. Mohd. Shamim & Anr.
Page No.2 of 28Mansoom and PW-10 to Sh. Acharaya Sindhu Hospital. During his treatment Sh. Mansoom had got expired. Accused no. 2 had promised for a good employment and salary and with such promise he had brought PW-6 and other children for working in a hazardous factory. Accused no. 1 used to take work for 12-13 hours and he used to give less salary. Due to long working hours and hazardous work the health of PW-10 and Sh. Mansoom has got deteriorated. The accused used to take work from them as they are bonded labour.
2. FIR Ex. PW-1/A was registered in the matter of 17.11.2018 after receipt of DD no. 27PP dated 17.11.2016 at 06:00 PM. Vide DD no. 16PP dated 18.11.2016 Ex. PW-15/C it is recorded that a boy by the name of Tausif aged about 12 years was admitted to hospital in unconscious state. The site plan is Ex. PW-15/B. After the investigation charge-sheet was filed and accused persons were summoned. Charge was given to both the accused on 14.11.2018. Both the accused are charged under section 370(5) IPC, u/s 374 IPC, u/s 75/79 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 and they are further charged u/s 3/14 of the Child and Adolescent (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986. Both the accused have not pleaded guilty to all the charges and claimed trial.
3. Prosecution has led PW-1 to PW-18 as entire evidence against both the accused. The prosecution evidence was closed SC No.172/2017 FIR No.689//2016 P.S. Sarai Rohilla State vs. Mohd. Shamim & Anr.
Page No.3 of 28on 21.11.2023. The statement of accused was recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C on 15.09.2025. Accused no. 2 has preferred not to lead evidence in defence. However, accused no.1 Mohd. Shamim has preferred to lead evidence in defence. Despite grant of opportunities accused no. 1 has failed to bring evidence in defence and vide separate statement by Ld. Counsel for accused no. 1 the DE was closed on 10.11.2025.
4. Final arguments are heard and record perused.
5. To prove the offence under Section 370 IPC the prosecution is required to establish the ingredients laid down under Section 370 IPC are as under:
(1) Whoever, for the purpose of exploitation, (a) recruits,
(b) transports, (c) harbours, (d) transfers, or (e) receives, a person or persons, by Firstly, using threats, or Secondly, using force, or any other form of coercion, or Thirdly, by abduction, or Fourthly, by practicing fraud, or deception, or Fifthly, by abuse of power, or Sixthly, by inducement, including the giving or receiving of payments or benefits, in order to achieve the consent of any person having control over the person recruited, transported, harboured, transferred or received, commits the offence of trafficking.
Explanation 1.The expression "exploitation" shall include any act of physical exploitation or any form of sexual exploitation, slavery or practices similar to slavery, servitude, or the forced removal of organs. Explanation 2.The consent of the victim is immaterial in determination of the offence of trafficking.
(2) Whoever commits the offence of trafficking shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years, but which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
SC No.172/2017FIR No.689//2016 P.S. Sarai Rohilla State vs. Mohd. Shamim & Anr.
Page No.4 of 28(3) Where the offence involves the trafficking of more than one person, it shall be punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years but which may extend to imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.
(4) Where the offence involves the trafficking of a minor, it shall be punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years, but which may extend to imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.
(5) Where the offence involves the trafficking of more than one minor, it shall be punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than fourteen years, but which may extend to imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.
(6) If a person is convicted of the offence of trafficking of minor on more than one occasion, then such person shall be punished with imprisonment for life, which shall mean imprisonment for the remainder of that person's natural life, and shall also be liable to fine.
(7) When a public servant or a police officer is involved in the trafficking of any person then, such public servant or police officer shall be punished with imprisonment for life, which shall mean imprisonment for the remainder of that persons natural life, and shall also be liable to fine.
6. The case of the prosecution is that on 17.11.2016 accused no. 1 Mohd. Shamim was running at toy factory at plot no. 335 phase-1 Shahzada Bagh, Inderlok, Delhi within jurisdiction of PS Sarai Rohilla. For the purpose of exploitation recruited more than one minor children namely Tehzeeb, Mamnoon @ Mannu, Mansoom, Zafar @ Tausif and Jamshed in his toy factory. Accused no. 2 Noman on 17.11.2016 had transported minor children namely Mamnoon @ Mannu, Mansoom, Zafar @ Tausif and Jamshed from their native place SC No.172/2017 FIR No.689//2016 P.S. Sarai Rohilla State vs. Mohd. Shamim & Anr.
Page No.5 of 28to the toy factory at plot no. 335, phase-1 Shahzada Bagh, Inderlok, Delhi and thereby both the accused are charged under 370(5) IPC.
7. PW-6 Tehjeeb has deposed that in the year 2016 he was residing at Delhi. He used to do whatever work available to him. Mansoom (since deceased), Mannu and Jamshed used to work in factory at plot no. 335, phase-1, Shahzada Bagh, Inderlok, Delhi. PW-6 is not aware that what was done by them as he has never worked in the said factory. In November, 2016 he had returned back to his native village. On that day before returning to his native village he had went to factory of Mannu then he saw few unconscious boys were being shifted in a car. He had accompanied Mannu in the said car upto the hospital. He had also given his statement before Ld. MM. PW-6 is cross- examined by the Ld. APP for the State and he has turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. On the basis of statement of PW-6 Ex. PW-6/A the FIR was registered in the matter vide Ex. PW-1/A. The statement of PW-6 under Section 164 Cr.P.C is Ex. PW-6/B and he has claimed that such statement was given by him at the instance of Police. Cross-examination is PW-6 is done.
8. PW-8 Mamnoon @ Mannu has deposed that in the year 2015-16 he was working as Fitter of the toys at Inderlok, Delhi and the owner was accused no. 1 Shamim. PW-8 has correctly identified accused no. 1 before the Court. Hence, the joint SC No.172/2017 FIR No.689//2016 P.S. Sarai Rohilla State vs. Mohd. Shamim & Anr.
Page No.6 of 28reading of PW-6 and PW-8 has proved on record that a toy factory was being run by accused no. 1 in the year 2015-16 at plot no. 335, phase-1 Shahzada Bagh, Inderlok, Delhi. It is deposed by PW-8 that accused no. 1 used to pay Rs. 500/- per day for the work he used to do. He used to work for 8 hours in a day. He was staying with his distant relative whose name he does not remember. He came to Delhi on his own. He had worked with accused no. 1 for 5-6 months. He has also declared hostile by the prosecution. Ld. APP for the State has cross-examined him. The statement of PW-8 under Section 161 Cr.P.C dated 18.11.2016 is Ex. PW-8/A and his supplementary statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C is Ex. PW-8/B. His statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C is Ex. PW-8/C. PW-8 has turned hostile to the case of prosecution whose cross- examination was allowed.
9. PW-10 Jamshed has deposed that in the year 2016 he came alone to Delhi alongwith Naseem (since deceased) and Naseem was his co-villager. He came to Delhi for work and started working in the toy factory. He is not aware that who is owner of the factory. He worked in the factory for about one month. His duty was to paste sticker on the toys in the said factory and duty of Naseem was to assemble the toys. They used to stay in rented premises situated 5 minutes walking distance away from the factory. The factory owner used to pay them Rs. 2000/- per month. Around 15-16 boys were working in the said factory whose name PW-10 does not remember. It is SC No.172/2017 FIR No.689//2016 P.S. Sarai Rohilla State vs. Mohd. Shamim & Anr.
Page No.7 of 28further deposed that one day Naseem had ordered meal from outside and after taking the said meal their health got deteriorated. They became unconscious. PW-10 regained consciousness in the hospital and he does not remember that who had shifted them to hospital. After being discharged from hospital he went back to his village. He has also turned hostile to the case of the prosecution and cross-examined by Ld. APP for the State by confronting him with the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C Ex. PW-10/A and the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C Ex. PW-10/1. It is admitted as correct that in his statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C it is written that Mannu and Tehjeeb beat them with belt. Cross-examination of this witnesses is Nil. Hence PW-10 has proved that about 15-16 boys used to work in the toy factory of accused no. 1 and while working in the said factory and by taking meal from outside they have become unconscious.
10. PW-11 is Zafar @ Tausif @ Jafar who has deposed that in the year 2016 he came to Delhi alongwith Naseem(since deceased) who was his co-villager. He came to Delhi for work. PW-11 and Naseem had started working in the factory. His duty was to paste stickers and assemble the toys in the said factory and so was the duty of Naseem. They used to stay in rented premises situated at a walking distance of 5 minutes away from the said factory. The factory owner used to pay Rs. 2000/- per month to him. Around 15-16 boys were working in the said factory. One day Naseem ordered meal from outside SC No.172/2017 FIR No.689//2016 P.S. Sarai Rohilla State vs. Mohd. Shamim & Anr.
Page No.8 of 28after taking of which their health got deteriorated and they became unconscious. PW-11 had regained consciousness in the hospital. He does not know who had shifted them to hospital. After getting discharged from hospital he went back to his village. He cannot identify owner of the factory. PW-11 is cross-examined by Ld. APP for the State and confronted his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C Ex. PW-11/A and also two statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C which is Marked as PW-11/1. PW-11 had identified his signature at point A.
11. PW-6 when examined on 05.08.2019 has deposed that on such date he was about 18 years. PW-8 when deposed on 17.10.2022 has claimed his age about 24 years. PW-10 has claimed his age as 22 years on 09.02.2023 and PW-11 has claimed his age as 19 years on 09.02.2023. The above age of the above witness is not challenged by the accused person. Hence prosecution has successfully proved on record that the incident is dated 17.11.2016 then PW-6, PW-8 , PW-10 and PW-11 were minors at the time of commission of offence. Hence the prosecution has successfully proved the first ingredient of Section 370 IPC.
12. PW-8 has deposed that he came to Delhi on his own. PW-10 has also deposed that he came to Delhi alongwith Naseem (since deceased) who was his co-villager. PW-11 has also deposed that he came to Delhi alongwith Naseem (since deceased). Hence from the above prosecution witness the SC No.172/2017 FIR No.689//2016 P.S. Sarai Rohilla State vs. Mohd. Shamim & Anr.
Page No.9 of 28prosecution has failed to prove that the above witness has been transported by the accused person. Now it has to seen that whether witness PW-6, PW-8, PW-10 and PW-11 were recruited or received by the accused person. The deposition of the above witness has proved that they were recruited by the accused person in their toy factory and the deceased Mansoom was also recruited in the same toy factory who was aged about 13 years vide Ex. P-1 his postmortem examination. PW-11 was confronted with his statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C which is Ex. PW-11/I at point A1 to A2. It is recorded that accused no. 2 Noman was the contractor who was resident of Tarbadi Village and he had brought PW-11 to Delhi for work. He brought PW-11 one month back. At point B1 to B1 it is stated that he was hit during his course of employment by Mannu/PW-8 and Tehjeeb/PW-6. The statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C is not a substantive piece of evidence however greater amount of credibility is attached to it since it is recorded by Judicial Magistrate and not by an IO. A corroborative piece of evidence can only corroborate a substantive piece of evidence and not another corroborative piece of evidence. Hence statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C cannot corroborate the statement given to the Police which formed the basis of registering the FIR. The deposition before the court is substantive piece of evidence. The presumption under Section 80 of Evidence Act extends only to the genuineness of the recording of statement recorded under SC No.172/2017 FIR No.689//2016 P.S. Sarai Rohilla State vs. Mohd. Shamim & Anr.
Page No.10 of 28Section 164 Cr.P.C and not as to its contents. The defence can impeach the credibility of such witness in reference to Section 155(3) and Section 145 of the Evidence Act. However in the present case this occasion to impeach the credibility of above witness has not arisen since the above prosecution witness has turned hostile and cross-examined by Ld. APP for the State. It was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Jayantibhai Chaturbhai Patel vs. State of Gujarat that when the witness has been declared hostile then the Court should be slow to act on the testimony of such witness. A witness different statement at different time has no regard for truth. The relevant citation is reproduced here under :
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled Jayantibha Chaturbhai Patel vs State of Gujarat on 16 December, 2025 = 2025 INSC 1443 in Criminal Appeal No. 890-891 of 2017.
10. This Court, in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Bhawani, (2003) 7 SCC 291, has held that where the witness has been declared hostile, the court should be slow to act on the testimony of such a witness.
Similar stance was reiterated by this Court in the case of Paramjeet Singh v. State of Uttarakhand, (2010) 10 SCC 439. The relevant paragraph of Bhawani (Supra) reads as under:
"10. The fact that the witness was declared hostile by the Court at the request of the prosecuting counsel and he was allowed to cross- examine the witness, no doubt furnishes no justification for rejecting en bloc the evidence of the witness. But the court has at least to be aware that prima facie, a witness who makes different statements at different times has no regard for truth. His evidence has to be read and considered as a whole with a view to find out whether any weight should be attached to the same. The court should be slow to act on the testimony of such a witness and, normally, it should look for corroboration to his evidence....."
13. Under Section 370 IPC the trafficking of a person must SC No.172/2017 FIR No.689//2016 P.S. Sarai Rohilla State vs. Mohd. Shamim & Anr.
Page No.11 of 28be by using threats, force, coercion, affection, fraud or deception, abuse of power, inducement including giving and receiving of payments of benefits. The prosecution witness PW-6, PW-8, PW-10 and PW-11 have no where deposed that the accused person had recruited or received them in satisfaction of above ingredients. Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case titled State NCT of Delhi vs. Rakesh Dua in criminal revision petition 68/2017 dt. 26.11.2024 has laid down at para no. 35 that the basic ingredients to attract the offence under Section 370 IPC is that such person should have been received for the purpose of exploitation. Reference is also made to Explanation 1 of Section 370 IPC. In the present case there is no allegation of the prosecution witness in their deposition regarding physical/sexual exploitation. The only allegation is that they had joined the job in the toy factory of accused no. 1 and they were remunerated for the work done by them. There is no evidence on record that the victims were recruited by using threat or any form of coercion. PW-6 was also residing in Delhi. PW-6, PW-8, PW-10 and PW-11 were not residing in the premises of the factory. They were leaving everyday from the toy factory and returning back to the same toy factory. Hence they had freedom not to come back to the work however they continue to return back for the work. As per deposition of PW-18/IO/ASI Surender Kumar the accused no. 2 Noman had made a disclosure statement that he used to take salary of children from accused no. 1 Mohd. Shamim and thereafter, the SC No.172/2017 FIR No.689//2016 P.S. Sarai Rohilla State vs. Mohd. Shamim & Anr.
Page No.12 of 28salary was distributed by him to the children. It is not the case of prosecution that the salary was misappropriated by him. PW-6 had worked in the said factory in the year 2016 for two months. PW-8 had worked in the said factory for 5-6 months in the year 2015-16. PW-10 had worked in the said factory in the year 2016 . PW-11 was also working in the said factory in the year 2016. PW-10 and PW-11 had came to the factory with Naseem (since deceased) and not with the accused person. Hence, it has come in evidence that PW-6, PW-8 PW-10 and PW-11 had joined the factory of the accused no. 1 on their own for which they were compensated. There is no allegation with regard to any form of exploitation as laid down u/s 370 (1) of the IPC.
14. U/s 374 IPC the prosecution has to prove that the accused person were compelling the victims unlawfully to do compulsory labour against their own will. In the present case, most of the victims were around in the age group of 15-16 years except the deceased Mansoom who was aged about 13 years on 20.11.2016. The victims PW-6, PW-8, PW-10 and PW-11 were going daily out of the toy factory and returning back to the toy factory. They were free to move and commute from their place of residence and the place of employment. None of the above prosecution witness has deposed that there was any kind of restriction for them to visit back to their home. Had there been any threat or exploitation then the victim could have approached Competent Authority or any Police Official to SC No.172/2017 FIR No.689//2016 P.S. Sarai Rohilla State vs. Mohd. Shamim & Anr.
Page No.13 of 28submit about their grievance. PW-6 had even went back to his native village while working at the toy factory. PW-8 was paid Rs. 500/- per day and he was staying with his distant relative in nearby locality. PW-10 is staying in rented premises at a walking distance of 5 minutes from the factory and so was PW-11 staying in the rented premises at a distance of 5 minutes from the factory. Hence, it is found that the victim were not unlawfully compelled by the accused person to do labour beyond their will and the necessary ingredients u/s 374 IPC have remained unproved on record. The relevant para no. 34 to 39 of the citation referred above titled State of NCT of Delhi vs. Rakesh Dua are reproduced here as under:-
Offence under Section 370 of the IPC
34. Section 370 of the IPC deals with 'trafficking of person'. Section 370 of the IPC is reproduced as hereunder:
370. Trafficking of person.--(1) Whoever, for the purpose of exploitation, (a) recruits, (b) transports, (c) harbours, (d) transfers, or (e) receives, a person or persons, by--
First.--using threats, or Secondly.--using force, or any other form of coercion, or Thirdly.--by abduction, or Fourthly.--by practising fraud, or deception, or Fifthly.--by abuse of power, or Sixthly.--by inducement, including the giving or receiving of payments or benefits, in order to achieve the consent of any person having control over the person recruited, transported, harboured, transferred or received, commits the offence of trafficking. Explanation 1.--The expression "exploitation" shall include any act of physical exploitation or any form of sexual exploitation, slavery or practices similar to slavery, servitude, or the forced removal of organs. Explanation 2.--The consent of the victim is immaterial in determination of the offence of trafficking. (2) Whoever commits the offence of trafficking shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less SC No.172/2017 FIR No.689//2016 P.S. Sarai Rohilla State vs. Mohd. Shamim & Anr.
Page No.14 of 28than seven years, but which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine. (3) Where the offence involves the trafficking of more than one person, it shall be punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years but which may extend to imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine. (4) Where the offence involves the trafficking of a minor, it shall be punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years, but which may extend to imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine. (5) Where the offence involves the trafficking of more than one minor, it shall be punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than fourteen years, but which may extend to imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine. (6) If a person is convicted of the offence of trafficking of minor on more than one occasion, then such person shall be punished with imprisonment for life, which shall mean imprisonment for the remainder of that person's natural life, and shall also be liable to fine. (7) When a public servant or a police officer is involved in the trafficking of any person then, such public servant or police officer shall be punished with imprisonment for life, which shall mean imprisonment for the remainder of that person's natural life, and shall also be liable to fine.
35. In accordance with Section 370 of the IPC, whoever, for the purpose of exploitation, recruits, transports, harbours, transfers or receives any person by doing any of the acts specified under Section 370, that is, by threat, force, abduction, fraud, abuse of power, or inducement, such individual would be liable for the commission of trafficking. The basic ingredient to attract the offence under Section 370of the IPC, however, is that such person should have been received for the purpose of exploitation. In accordance with the Explanation 1 to Section 370 of the IPC, the term "exploitation" connotes physical or sexual exploitation, slavery, servitude, or the forced removal of the organs.
36. From a perusal of the record, it is apparent that no allegations with regard to there being any form of physical/ sexual exploitation have been levelled against the respondent. The learned ASJ noted that the victims categorically stated that they started working with the respondent way back in the year 1992, and no allegations of physical or sexual exploitation have been made. It was noted that the only allegation was that after joining the job, the victims had taken some loan from the respondent who now SC No.172/2017 FIR No.689//2016 P.S. Sarai Rohilla State vs. Mohd. Shamim & Anr.
Page No.15 of 28demands the return of such amount. It was noted that the victims, in their statement under Section 161 of the CrPC, nowhere stated that they have already paid the amount to the respondent. Victims were being remunerated for the work done by them. The case of the prosecution is not that the victims were recruited by using threat or any form of coercion. They were working since the year 1992 and had joined on their own for which they were being compensated adequately. Considering that no allegations with regard to any form of exploitation was levelled by the victims against the respondent, the learned ASJ rightly noted that no case under Section 370 of the IPC was made out against the respondent.
Offence under Section 374 of the IPC
37. Section 374 of the IPC provides as under:
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.
38. In order for the offence under Section 374 of the IPC to be attracted, any person must be unlawfully compelled to labour against their will. In the present case, the learned ASJ noted that the victims were grown up, and were free to move and commute from their place of residence and the place of employment. It was noted that the victims were even carrying out their part time business after the employment. It was noted that as per the statement of the witnesses and the family members of the victims, the victims freely visited their families at their native villages.
39. It was noted that the chargesheet itself mentioned that the victims were free to roam in the market of Naya Bans where the Police Station Lahori Gate too was situated. Had there been any threat or exploitation, the victims could easily have approached the police officials at any point in time. It was further noted that the victims even had their own mobile phones, and the CDR manifested that the victims were having frequent conversations with their families and friends. It was consequently noted that in the event of there being any restriction, the victims could easily have approached the police or have made a complaint to SC No.172/2017 FIR No.689//2016 P.S. Sarai Rohilla State vs. Mohd. Shamim & Anr.
Page No.16 of 28their friends or family who in turn could have lodged a complaint to the police. From a perusal of the aforesaid, it is apparent that the victims were not unlawfully compelled to labour beyond their will. Consequently, the learned ASJ, rightly discharged the respondent of the offence under Section 374 of the IPC.
15. Section 75 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2015 (hereinafter referred as JJA Act) provides punishment for cruelty to child. It provides that the person in charge or in control if assaults, abandons, abuses, exposes or willfully neglects the child or procures the child for such purpose in a manner likely to cause such child unnecessary mental or physical suffering then he had to be punished. The relevant Section is reproduced here as under:-
75. Punishment for cruelty to child.--Whoever, having the actual charge of, or control over, a child, assaults, abandons, abuses, exposes or wilfully neglects the child or causes or procures the child to be assaulted, abandoned, abused, exposed or neglected in a manner likely to cause such child unnecessary mental or physical suffering, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years or with fine of one lakh rupees or with both:
Provided that in case it is found that such abandonment of the child by the biological parents is due to circumstances beyond their control, it shall be presumed that such abandonment is not wilful and the penal provisions of this section shall not apply in such cases:
Provided further that if such offence is committed by any person employed by or managing an organisation, which is entrusted with the care and protection of the child, he shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment which may extend up to five years, and fine which may extend up to five lakhs rupees:
Provided also that on account of the aforesaid cruelty, if the child is physically incapacitated or develops a mental illness or is rendered mentally unfit to perform regular SC No.172/2017 FIR No.689//2016 P.S. Sarai Rohilla State vs. Mohd. Shamim & Anr.Page No.17 of 28
tasks or has risk to life or limb, such person shall be punishable with rigorous imprisonment, not less than three years but which may be extended up to ten years and shall also be liable to fine of five lakhs rupees.
16. Section 79 provides for prohibition of exploitation of a child employee. Whoever offensively engages a child and keeps him in a bondage for the purpose of employment or withholds his earnings or uses his earnings for his own purpose then such person has to be punished. Employment includes selling goods and services and entertainment in public places for economic gain. The relevant Section is reproduced here as under :-
79. Exploitation of a child employee.--Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, whoever ostensibly engages a child and keeps him in bondage for the purpose of employment or withholds his earnings or uses such earning for his own purposes shall be punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine of one lakh rupees.
Explanation.--For the purposes of this section, the term "employment" shall also include selling goods and services, and entertainment in public places for economic gain.
17. The prosecution is required to prove cruelty and exploitation the ingredients of Section 75 and Section 79. From the evidence already discussed above it has come on record that the boys were working in the factory of accused person were not under any kind of bondage and they were free to move in and out of factory.
18. Mark PW-15/X1 is the postmortem report which SC No.172/2017 FIR No.689//2016 P.S. Sarai Rohilla State vs. Mohd. Shamim & Anr.
Page No.18 of 28mentions the cause of death as consolidation of both the lungs and it is reported that it is a natural death. It was incumbent on the part of the prosecution to prove that such consolidation of the lungs had occurred while the victim were working in the toy factory of the accused person. PW-12 SI Vishram Meena has deposed that on 17.11.2016 two children had been admitted at Acharya Bhikshu Hospital, Moti Nagar, Delhi with alleged history of food poisoning who were declared brought dead on arrival at the hospital. PW-13 HC Anil has deposed that the injured Jamshed and injured Mansoom aged about 13 years were brought to hospital. The injured Mansoom was brought declared dead. PW-16 Dr. Adesh Kumar from FSL Delhi has deposed that he had examined viscera of deceased Mansoom and it is deposed that on chemical microscopic and TLC examination, metallic poisons, ethyl and methyl alcohol, cyanide, phosphide, alkaloids, barbiturates, tranquilizers and pesticides could not detected in exhibits '1A', '1B', '1C', and '3'. Hence, there is no medical evidence that the children were developed harmful medical condition after working in the toy factory of the accused person. PW-6 has denied that he ever worked in the said factory. PW-8 has deposed that he was working as fitter of toys. PW-10 has deposed that his duty was to paste stickers on the toys. PW-11 has deposed that his duty was to paste stickers on the toys and assembling them. Hence, there is no evidence of record on the basis of which it can said that the child were kept in bondage for the purpose of SC No.172/2017 FIR No.689//2016 P.S. Sarai Rohilla State vs. Mohd. Shamim & Anr.
Page No.19 of 28employment or their earnings were withheld. The assault, abuse, abandons, illegal exposure or neglect of the child with unnecessary mental and physical suffering is not proved on record. Hence, it is held that the prosecution has failed to prove the necessary ingredients Section of 75/79 of JJ Act 2015. It was held in case titled Kothakonda Aishwarya Kottakonda vs The State of Telangana, 2023 in Criminal Petition No. 9020 of 2022 from Hon'ble High Court of Telangana that if a juvenile works voluntarily or by his own wish then Section 75 which deals with the punishment for cruelty to a child and Section 79 which deals with the provision regarding the exploitation of a child employee would not come into effect. Para 5 to para 8 of the Citation referred above are reproduced here as under:-
Hon'ble Telangana High Court in case titled Kothakonda Aishwarya Kottakonda vs The State of Telangana on 5 January, 2023 in Criminal Petition No.9020 of 2022
5. For the sake of convenience, Sections 75 and 79 of the Act are extracted hereunder:
"75.Punishment for cruelty to child:- Whoever, having the actual charge of, or control over, a child, assaults, abandons, abuses, exposes or willfully neglects the child or causes or procures the child to be assaulted, abandoned, abused, exposed or neglected in a manner likely to cause such child unnecessary mental or physical suffering, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years or with fine of one lakh rupees or with both:
Provided that in case it is found that such abandonment of the child by the biological parents is due to circumstances beyond their control, it shall be presumed that such abandonment is not willful and the penal provisions of this section shall not apply in such cases:
Provided further that if such offence is committed by any person employed by or managing an organisation, which is SC No.172/2017 FIR No.689//2016 P.S. Sarai Rohilla State vs. Mohd. Shamim & Anr.Page No.20 of 28
entrusted with the care and protection of the child, he shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment which may extend up to five years, and fine which may extend up to five lakhs rupees:
Provided also that on account of the aforesaid cruelty, if the child is physically incapacitated or develops a mental illness or is rendered mentally unfit to perform regular tasks or has risk to life or limb, such person shall be punishable with rigorous imprisonment, not less than three years but which may be extended up to ten years and shall also be liable to fine of five lakhs rupees."
79.Exploitation of a child employee: Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, whoever ostensibly engages a child and keeps him in bondage for the purpose of employment or withholds his earnings or uses such earning for his own purposes shall be punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine of one lakh rupees. Explanation.-- For the purposes of this section, the term "employment" shall also include selling goods and services, and entertainment in public places for economic gain."
6. In the present case, on the basis of the complaint, crime was registered. Even according to the witnesses, who formed the team 'Operation Muskan' also stated that when they went to the premises, they found six girls and they have not revealed the details. However, according to the Team, they were employed in the company. The children who were examined as LW's 9 to 14, stated that due to Corona pandemic, they were working for the company as sales girls to make ends meet. Further they stated that they went from door to door selling masalas.
7. Section 75 of the Act provides for punishment, if any person having control over a child, assaults, abandons, abuses, exposes or willfully neglects the child or procures the child to be assaulted, abandoned, abused, exposed or neglected, resulting in mental or physical suffering of the child. Even according to the Team, none of them state about any such acts as required under Section 75 of the Act. The witnesses did not speak about any assault by the accused or abandoning or they the children were abused or neglected in any manner causing physical or mental suffering. When none of the ingredients of Section 75 of the Act are attracted, the proceedings against the petitioner SC No.172/2017 FIR No.689//2016 P.S. Sarai Rohilla State vs. Mohd. Shamim & Anr.
Page No.21 of 28have to be quashed.
8. Section 79 of the Act prescribes punishment for the acts of ostensibly engaging a child and keeping him in bondage for the purpose of employment or withholding his earnings or using such earning for one's own purposes. There are no such allegations in the entire set of documents filed under section 207 Cr.P.C before the Trial Court. For the said reasons, the prosecution against the petitioner cannot be maintained for the offence under section 79.
19. Now it has to be seen that whether the prosecution has successfully proved Section 3/14 of the Child and Adolescent Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act 1986. The relevant statutes are reproduced here as under:-
3. Prohibition of employment of children in any occupations and processes.--(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 safely 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 SC No.172/2017 FIR No.689//2016 P.S. Sarai Rohilla State vs. Mohd. Shamim & Anr.Page No.22 of 28
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).
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:
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. Telangana High Court Kothakonda Aishwarya Kottakonda ... vs The State Of Telangana on 5 January, 2023 (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 SC No.172/2017 FIR No.689//2016 P.S. Sarai Rohilla State vs. Mohd. Shamim & Anr.Page No.23 of 28
extend to one month or with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees or with both.
20. Ld. Counsel for the accused has submitted that PW-15 in his deposition dated 31.10.2023 has failed to show any ownership of the factory or property with accused no. 1. PW-12 SI Vishram Meena has deposed that the deceased Mansoom was admitted with the history of food poisoning. However, PW-11 has deposed that Naseem had ordered meal from outside and after taking the said meal their health was deteriorated and they become unconscious. Similarly, PW-10 has deposed the same facts. PW-10 had regained consciousness in the hospital. Hence, the death of deceased Mansoom had not occurred due to the act of accused person. PW-15 has not recorded the statement of the owner and he does not remember the name of the owner of the factory or property. He had not taken possession of the toys lying in the factory. PW-15 has deposed that accused no. 1 was not called as Pappu. The disclosure statement Ex. PW-15/1 of accused no. 2 alone cannot form basis for conviction in absence of support from prosecution witness. However, PW-8 has deposed that he was working in the toy factory and owners of which was accused no. 1 This is not rebutted or controverted in the deposition of PW-8. It is deposed by PW-8 that accused no. 1 used to pay Rs. 500/- per day for the work he used to do. He used to work 8 hours per day. There is no cross examination of this deposition and hence prosecution has successfully proved that the toy SC No.172/2017 FIR No.689//2016 P.S. Sarai Rohilla State vs. Mohd. Shamim & Anr.
Page No.24 of 28factory was run by accused no. 1 and he was taking the work from the boys employed in said factory. PW- 10 has deposed that the factory owner pay to him Rs. 2000/- per month and hence corroborated the fact with accused no. 1 as the payment of Rs. 500/- was received by PW-8 only from accused no. 1. PW-11 also used to receive Rs. 2000/- per month from the owner of the factory.
21. The PW-6, PW-8, PW-10 and PW-11 are found above the age of 12 years. The deceased Mansoom was also aged about 13 years vide Ex. P-1. As per the definition of WHO generally the age between 10-19 years are considered as the age group of adolescence. Hence, all the children produced before the present Court comes under the category of adolescence. Section 3A of the Child and Adolescent Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act 1986 has laid down prohibition of employment of adolescent in certain hazardous occupation and process which is laid down in the schedule. The Central Government has further power to lay down or specify the nature of non-hazardous work which an adolescent may be permitted to work. Under the said Act the adolescent is defined under Section 2(i) who is between 14-18 years of age. The child is defined as the person u/s 2(ii) of the said Act who has not completed the age of 14 years. Hence the deceased Mansoom had not completed the age of 14 years on the date of his death and he was child on date of his death. The Schedule u/s 3A defines that the hazardous work are mines, inflammable SC No.172/2017 FIR No.689//2016 P.S. Sarai Rohilla State vs. Mohd. Shamim & Anr.
Page No.25 of 28substance and explodes and hazardous process. It has come in evidence of prosecution witness that the deceased Mansoom and PW-6, PW-8, PW-10 and PW-11 were working in a toy factory owned by accused no. 1. They were doing work of assembling toys, pasting stickers on the toys and which cannot be regarded as hazardous as defined under the Schedule of the above Act. Hence, the evidence of the prosecution has failed to prove that PW-6, PW-8, PW-10 and PW-11 were employed in any hazardous occupation and process in violation of Section 3A of the Child and Adolescent Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act 1986. However prosecution successfully proved on record that accused no. 1 had employed the deceased Mansoom the child aged about 13 years on the date of his death and it has come in evidence that the family members of the deceased Mansoom were not working in the toy factory of accused no. 1. The family members are defined in the Explanation (a) of Section 3 of the Child and Adolescent Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act 1986. Hence, the exemption clause as provided under Section 3 (2) of Child and Adolescent Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act 1986 is held not applicable in favour of accused no. 1. There is specific prohibition under Section 3 (1) of Child and Adolescent Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act 1986 that no child shall be employed or permitted to work in any occupation or process. Hence, the deceased Mansoom was employed by the accused no. 1 in his toy factory and this work was done by deceased SC No.172/2017 FIR No.689//2016 P.S. Sarai Rohilla State vs. Mohd. Shamim & Anr.
Page No.26 of 28Mansoom. It was proved by PW-6 in his deposition and the same is unrebutted and not cross-examined. Hence, the prosecution has successfully proved that the deceased Mansoom was employed by accused no.1 in his factory in violation of provisions of Child and Adolescent Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act 1986. The above violation is punishable under Section 14(1) of Child and Adolescent Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act 1986. Hence, accused no. 1 is convicted under Section 3(1) of Child and Adolescent Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act 1986 r/w Section 14 of Child and Adolescent Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act 1986.
22. It is further held that the prosecution has failed to substantiate all the ingredients of the offence charged against accused no. 2 Noman and therefore, accused no. 2 Noman is acquitted of all the charges levied against him.
23. In such view of the matter, it is held that prosecution has failed to prove all the charges levelled against the accused No. 2 Noman. Hence the accused No. 2 Noman stands acquitted of all the offences under Section 304, 370, 374, 34 IPC and 16 Bonded Labour Act and 3/14 Child Labour Act & 75/79 JJ Act. His earlier personal bond stands cancelled and surety bond stands discharged. The documents, if any, be returned to the surety and endorsement on security documents is allowed to be de-endorsed. In terms of Section 437A Cr.P.C, accused person SC No.172/2017 FIR No.689//2016 P.S. Sarai Rohilla State vs. Mohd. Shamim & Anr.
Page No.27 of 28have furnished his bail bond as directed which will be in force for period of six months from the date of this judgment. Case property be confiscated to the State.
24. However, it is held that the prosecution has successfully proved on record that the accused No. 1 Mohd. Shamim has committed the offence under Section 3(1) of Child and Adolescent Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act 1986 r/w Section 14 of Child and Adolescent Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act 1986 and accordingly accused No.1 Mohd. Shamim is held guilty and convicted under Section 3(1) of Child and Adolescent Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act 1986 r/w Section 14 of Child and Adolescent Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act 1986.
Put up for arguments on the point of sentence on 17.02.2026.
Announced in the open Court
Digitally signed
on 12.02.2026. JOGINDER by JOGINDER
PRAKASH
PRAKASH NAHAR
NAHAR Date: 2026.02.12
16:12:53 +0530
(JOGINDER PRAKASH NAHAR)
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE
(FTC-01) CENTRAL/TIS HAZARI
COURT/ DELHI
SC No.172/2017
FIR No.689//2016
P.S. Sarai Rohilla
State vs. Mohd. Shamim & Anr.
Page No.28 of 28