Delhi District Court
Ashok Kumar vs The State & Ors on 3 June, 2016
IN THE COURT OF SH. PITAMBER DUTT, SPECIAL JUDGE
(PC ACT) CBI-02 CENTRAL, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CR No.12/16
Unique ID No.02401R0191882016
Ashok Kumar ........ Revisionist/petitioner
Versus
The State & Ors. .......Respondents
Date of Institution : 15.03.2016
Date of order : 03.06.2016
ORDER
1. Vide this order, I shall decide the revision petition filed by the petitioner against impugned orders dated 15.01.2016 and 09.02.2016 whereby Ld. Trial Court has framed the charge against the accused persons. The brief facts giving rise of filing present revision petition are given as under:-
2. That FIR No. 240/13 u/s 307A, 374 IPC, Section 23, 26 of JJ Act and Section 14 of Child Labour Act was registered on the complaint of Ms. Ambiya Khatoon. It CR No.12/16 Ashok Kumar Vs. The State & Ors. 1 of 11 is mentioned in the FIR that complainant was the resident of Bugultula Alipur, Bangal (W.B) and studied up to 5th standard. One of her relative brought her in Delhi for domestic work. She worked in House No. 16/9 Shakti Nagar, Delhi for period of 11 months. She also worked in House No. 29/3, Shakti Nagar, Delhi of accused Ashok Kumar for period of one month. She got disturbed and wanted to go to her native village for which she left the house of the accused Ashok Kumar and was brought into the police station where she made statement. On the basis of which, case was registered.
3. During investigation, her statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C was also got recorded and after completion of the investigation, the police filed the charge-sheet initially in the court of Ld. Addl. Sessions Judge. Ld. Addl.
Sessions judge vide order dt. 24.09.2014 observed that there was no evidence to make out a prima-facie case against any of the accused persons for the offence punishable under Section 370 A IPC as there was no CR No.12/16 Ashok Kumar Vs. The State & Ors. 2 of 11 allegation of sexual exploitation in any manner. On the basis of said observation, Ld. Addl. Sessions Judge sent the said file to the court of Ld. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate as rest of the offences were exclusively triable by the court of Ld. MM.
4. Thereafter, Ld. Trial Court heard the arguments on the point of charge and vide impugned order dt. 15.01.2016 concluded that no prima facie case is made out against all the accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 23 and 26 of the Juvenile Justice Act. Ld. Trial Court, however found that prima facie case u/s 374 IPC and under Section 14 of the Child Labour Act is made out against accused persons and accordingly framed the Charges vide impugned order dt. 09.02.2016. Feeling aggrieved from the said order, the instant revision petition has been filed.
5. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner contended that the allegations levelled in the complaint do not make out any CR No.12/16 Ashok Kumar Vs. The State & Ors. 3 of 11 case against the petitioner, therefore there arises no question of framing of Charge under Section 374 IPC. He further contended that complainant herself stated that she left the premises as she did not want to work and there was no allegation of keeping the complainant forcibly or in unlawful manner. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner argued that Ld. Trial Court has not appreciated the material produced before the Court and has passed the impugned orders without any basis.
6. Per contra, Ld. Addl. PP for the State contended that Ld. Trial Court has rightly framed the charges against the accused persons on the basis of material placed by the prosecution and there is no infirmity in the same. He prayed that present revision may be dismissed.
7. I have heard Ld. Counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders dt. 15.1.2016 and 09.02.2016 and the entire Trial Court record. Perusal of the above shows that vide order dt. 15.01.2016, Ld. Trial CR No.12/16 Ashok Kumar Vs. The State & Ors. 4 of 11 Court has formed an opinion that no prima facie case is made out against the accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 23 & 26 of the Juvenile Justice Act. The said findings given by Ld. Trial Court has not been challenged by the State.
8. The petitioner has claimed that on the basis of the material placed by the prosecution, no case is made out against the petitioner. A perusal of the material shows that the complainant was of 13 years of age as stated by her in her complaint on the basis of which FIR was registered. Prosecution also placed on record the birth certificate of the complainant, as per which her date of birth is 27.11.2000 thus she had not completed the age of 13 years on the day of registration of FIR dt. 9.11.2013.
9. As per Section 2(ii) of Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986 "child" means a person who has not completed his fourteenth year of age. Thus as CR No.12/16 Ashok Kumar Vs. The State & Ors. 5 of 11 per the definition, the complainant was the child as defined in Section 2(ii) of Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986.
10. Section 14 of the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986 provides the penalties for employing any child to work in contravention of the provisions of Section 3. As per Section 3 of the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986, 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.
11. The occupations set forth in Part A of the Schedule clause 14 talks about the employment of children as domestic works or servants. Thus, as per Section 3 of Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986 read with clause 14 of Part A of schedule, no child can be employed as a domestic worker or as a servant. CR No.12/16 Ashok Kumar Vs. The State & Ors. 6 of 11
12. The complainant who as per the material produced by prosecution was less than 13 years of age on the date of registration of FIR was employed by accused as domestic worker which is in contravention of Section 3 of the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986 and punishable u/s 14 of the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986. The Ld. Trial Court has thus rightly framed charge u/s 14 of Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986 and I find no infirmity in the same.
13. Ld. Trial Court has also framed charge u/s 374 IPC against the petitioner which reads as under:
"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."
CR No.12/16 Ashok Kumar Vs. The State & Ors. 7 of 11
14. A perusal of Section 374 IPC thus makes it absolutely clear that pre-requisite for invoking the said section is that prosecution has to place material on record to prove that accused persons compelled the complainant unlawfully to labour against her wish.
15. The prosecution has placed on record the application form given by the complainant to Bhagwati Placement Agency for employing herself for domestic services. The petitioner employed the complainant with the help of the said placement agency and has not brought her from her native place. The petitioner has thus not employed the complainant unlawfully but through placement agency.
16. The prosecution has also placed on record counselling report dt. 9.11.2013. In the said counselling report, it is clearly mentioned that the complainant has no complaint that she was physically or sexually assaulted by anyone. In the entire counselling report, CR No.12/16 Ashok Kumar Vs. The State & Ors. 8 of 11 the complainant has not made any allegation against the petitioner that she was compelled to work as a domestic help by the accused in his house.
17. No doubt that the prosecution has placed on record statement recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C. In the said statement, the complainant has stated that "pichle ghar wali aunty mujhe dant-ti thi aur pura khana nahin deti thi. 29/3 Shakti Nagar wali aunty mujhe bina baat dant- ti thi, esi kaaran 9.11.2013 ko dopaher 2 baje aunty ko yeh bolkar ki main fufa ke paas ja rahi huin. Main ghar chorh kar aa gai".
18. A perusal of the said statement given by the complainant before the Ld. MM shows that she was scolded by the lady where she was working. No such allegation has been made by her against the accused Ashok Kumar. Even the said allegation was pertaining to scolding, but she has not stated that she was compelled to work as domestic help in the said house. CR No.12/16 Ashok Kumar Vs. The State & Ors. 9 of 11
19. The prosecution has not placed any prima facie material to show that complainant was compelled to labour against her will. The prosecution has thus not placed prima facie material on record for framing charge u/s 374 IPC. The Ld. Trial Court while passing the impugned order dt. 15.01.2016 has committed error in observing that there is prima facie case made out against the accused persons u/s 374 IPC. Ld. Trial Court has committed error in framing the charge against the accused persons u/s 374 IPC vide order dt. 09.02.2014.
20. In view of the above facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that Ld. Trial Court was fully justified in framing charge against accused person u/s 14 of the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986 and there is no error in the same. However, Ld. Trial Court committed error in framing charge u/s 374 IPC made out against the accused persons. The CR No.12/16 Ashok Kumar Vs. The State & Ors. 10 of 11 Revision Petition is thus partly allowed. The impugned order dt. 15.01.2016 is modified to the extent that petitioner is discharged for the offence punishable u/s 374 IPC. However, charges framed against the accused under Section 14 of Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986 shall remain as it is. Trial Court Record be sent back immediately along with the copy of this order. Revision file be consigned to the record-room after due compliance.
(ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT TODAY I.E ON 03.06.2016) (PITAMBER DUTT) SPECIAL JUDGE (PC ACT)(CBI):02 DELHI CR No.12/16 Ashok Kumar Vs. The State & Ors. 11 of 11