Delhi District Court
State vs . Samsuddin on 5 December, 2020
IN THE COURT OF MS. NUPUR GUPTA, MM11, SOUTH EAST
DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
FIR No. : 109/10
PS : Jaitpur
No. : 93639/16
U/s : 23/26 JJ Act
STATE VS. SAMSUDDIN
JUDGMENT
A Case Identification Number 93639/16
B Name of the Complainant Sh. R.M. Parthasarathy, Inspecting
Officer, Labour Department, GNCT of
Delhi, New Delhi.
C Name of the accused & his Md.Samsuddin S/o Mahrum Abdul
parentage and address Hamid, R/o H.No. G/695, Gali no. 15,
Khadda Colony, Jaitpur II, New Delhi.
D Offence complained of 26/26 JJ Act & U/s 3/14 Child Labour
(Prohibition & Regulation Act)
E Date of commission of offence Year 2010
F Date of Institution 16.08.2011
G Offence Charged 23/26 JJ Act & u/s 16 Bonded Labour
Act
H Plea of accused Pleaded not guilty
I Order Reserved on 19.11.2020
J Date of Pronouncement 05.12.2020
K Final Order Acquitted
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE CASE
1. Prosecution alleges that in the year 2010 at G Block, Gali FIR No. 109/10 1/10 no.15, Gadha Colony, Jaitpur, New Delhi, accused had employed children, namely, Munna, Naseem, Sabir, Hari Shanker, Lal Babu, Javed in his Zari Karkhana and had committed cruelty and exploitation against those children. Further, accused had forced children to do the labour against their tender age and thereby accused has committed offences punishable under section(s) 23/26 JJ Act and U/s 16 of Bonded Labour Act.
2. The FIR was registered on the complaint of PW1 R.M. Parthasarathy. After the completion of investigation a final report in the form of chargesheet under section 173 Cr.P.C was forwarded to the court arraying accused Samsuddin as an accused.
3. After taking cognizance of the offence by the court, accused was summoned. Pursuant to his appearance, in compliance of section 207 Cr.P.C copy of chargesheet was supplied to accused. Subsequently after hearing the state and the defence and after perusal of the judicial file, prima facie case against the accused for the offences punishable under section 23 & 26 of JJ Act and u/s 16 Bonded Labour Act was found to be made out. Accordingly, charge was framed upon accused Samsuddin to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Accordingly, thereafter the matter was posted for Prosecution Evidence.
4. In order to substantiate and prove its case against the accused the prosecution has examined following witnesses.
5. PW1 R.M. Parthasarthi, Inspecting Officer deposed that on 20.5.2010 he received a complaint of an NGO and the present case was marked to him. On that said day, he alongwith Labour Inspector Sunil Taneja and local police officials raided H.No. 645, G Block, Jaitpur, Khada Colony. He found that business occupation regarding zari work was going on there and 7 children were employed. They rescued those children and FIR No. 109/10 2/10 produced them before Child Welfare Committee, Lajpat Nagar. He and Labour Inspector Sunil Taneja prepared labour survey form Ex.PW1/A, Ex.PW1/B and Ex.PW1/C. He had handed over a separate sheet containing name, age, father's age and work site of rescued children to the IO Ex.PW1/D. He had handed over his survey report to the concerned department and the CWC. IO recorded his statement.
6. PW2 R.K. Rai, Member Child Welfare Committee deposed that SI Dara Singh, R.M. Parthasarthi from Labour Department and NGO Butterfly rescued seven children employed as child labour on 20.05.2010 who were working as zari workers. They were produced before him. He provided them shelter and ordered the IO to register the FIR and got conducted age determination of all the children. The said order is Ex.PW2/A. After completion of inquiry, custody of the children was handed over their guardian.
7. PW3 V. S. Gautam, Member Child Welfare Committee deposed that SI Dara Singh, R.M. Parthasarthi from Labour Department and NGO Butterfly rescued seven children employed as child labour on 20.05.2010 who were working as zari workers. They were produced before him. He provided them shelter and ordered the IO to register the FIR and got conducted age determination of all the children. The said order is Ex.PW2/A. After completion of inquiry, custody of the children was handed over their guardian.
8. PW4 Mohd. Usman deposed that in the year 2010, a call was received in the Call Center to rescue the child labours from Zari factory. On the said information, he inquired and gave information to Labour Department. On 20.05.2011, he alongwith his team and officials from Labour Department and local police officials went to zari factory. They FIR No. 109/10 3/10 rescued seven children from the said factory. The children were brought to PS and DD entry was made. They were produced before Child Welfare Committee, Lajpat Nagar. IO recorded his statement.
9. PW5 Sunil Taneja deposed that on 20.5.2011, he was posted as Labour inspector. He alongwith complainant and 23 police officials went to Zari factory and rescued seven children.
10. PW6 Paramjeet Kukreja deposed that in the year 2010, SI Dara Singh, R.M. Parthasarthi from Labour Department and NGO Butterfly rescued seven children employed as child labour on 20.05.2010 who were working as zari workers. They were produced before him. He provided them shelter and ordered the IO to register the FIR and got conducted age determination of all the children. The said order is Ex.PW2/A. After completion of inquiry, custody of the children was handed over their guardian.
11. PW7 Jestin Joseph deposed that on 25.5.2010 one complaint was received regarding the child labour in zari factory at Khadda Colony, Jaitpur. On receiving the complaint, he visited the spot and prepared a formal letter on the said complaint and gave it to Labour Department. Thereafter on 20.5.2010, he alongwith local police and officials from Labour Department reached the spot and total 7 children were rescued who were working with. Thereafter, they returned to the PS and all the children were produced before CWC, Lajpat Nagar.
12. PW8 Rajender Singh deposed that on 20.5.2011 he joined operation team to rescue the children. They visited the zari factory and from that, certain children were working in the said company in unhygienic condition. They were rescued by the team and children were produced before SDM, Kalkaji. Thereafter, the said children were sent to CWC, Lajpat FIR No. 109/10 4/10 Nagar.
13. PW9 Dr. Anjali deposed that on 09.7.2010 one medical board was constituted for determination of age of some boys. On the basis of the inquiry, the report was prepared Ex.PW9/A to Ex.PW9/G.
14. PW10 Dr.Vikas Tripathy deposed that on 09.7.2010 one medical board was constituted for determination of age of some boys. On the basis of the inquiry, the report was prepared Ex.PW9/A to Ex.PW9/G.
15. PW11 Dr. Anshu Goyal deposed that on 09.7.2010 one medical board was constituted for determination of age of some boys. On the basis of the inquiry, the report was prepared Ex.PW9/A to Ex.PW9/G.
16. PW12 Dr. Sarita Jilowa deposed that on 09.7.2010 one medical board was constituted for determination of age of some boys. On the basis of the inquiry, the report was prepared Ex.PW9/A to Ex.PW9/G.
17. PW13 Retd. SI Jaipal deposed that 01.06.2010 he received a rukka Ex.PW13/A by SHO PS Jaitpur for registration of FIR. He made endorsement over the rukka and registered the FIR No. 109/10 Ex.PW13/B. After registration of FIR, he handed over original rukka and copy of FIR to Ct. Kiran Pal.
18. PW14 Inspector Dara Singh deposed that on 20.05.2010 it was informed by the officials of Labour Department and members of NGO that one person is getting work done by children below 14 years. Then on the directions of concerned SHO, a raiding team was joined. At a distance of about 100 meters from the exact location, members of Labour Department and the NGO led them to the spot where he found 07 children doing zari work. All the children were rescued by the team. All those children were brought the PS and on the next day, they were produced before CWC. The children were produced before SDM Kalkaji and the order FIR No. 109/10 5/10 passed by SDM Kalkaji is Ex.PW2/A. Pursuant to the said order, FIR was registered on 01.06.2010. During investigation, he got the ossification test of all the seven children and had also made a request to CMO of the hospital Ex.PW14/A. He recorded statement of witnesses U/s 161 Cr.PC and collected age certificate of all the children. You were arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW14/B. After completion of investigation, he prepared the chargesheet and filed it before the Court.
19. PW15 V.K. Tiwari, Bailiff deposed that he was deputed to identify the signatures of SDM Sh. V.P.Singh. He had identified the signatures of SDM.
20. All the witnesses are cross examined by ld.counsel for the accused.
21. After prosecution evidence, the statement of accused was recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C wherein all incriminating evidences led against him during the trial by the prosecution witnesses were put to him, affording him an opportunity to give his explanation, if any. Accused pleaded innocence and stated that the premises where the raid was conducted does not belongs to him and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. Accused Samsuddin preferred to lead defence evidence and examined himself as DW1 in his defence. Thereafter, DE was closed vide his separate statement recorded on 27.01.2020. Accordingly, the matter was posted for final arguments.
22. I have heard the learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the accused at length. I have also carefully perused the entire judicial record and carefully appreciated the evidence lead by the prosecution.
22. Challan was filed under Section 3/14 Child Labour Act 1986 FIR No. 109/10 6/10 and 23/26 of The Juvenile Justice (Child and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 and Section 16/17 of the Bonded Labour System(Abolition Act. Vide order dated 30.10.2012 charge was framed against the accused Samsuddin under Section 23/26 of Justice Juvenile (C&P of Children) Act 2000 and section 16 of Bonded Labour Act.
Section 23 of The Juvenile Justice (Child and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 reads as under :
"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."
23. As per the challan, a task force consisting various officers of Labour Deptt, NGO, Butterflies and local police of PS Jaitpur was constituted for rescue of children. Accordingly, a raid was got conducted on 20.05.2010 and total 7 children were rescued and on 21.05.2010, they were produced before CWC Lajpat Nagar.
24. Perusal of deposition of PW1 who was Inspecting Officer shows that he failed to either name the accused or identify him in the court. He stated that the child labours were rescued by Labour Department and he was posted as Inspecting Officer at Labour Department. In his cross examination, he was asked whether any written complaint was received by him regarding employment of child labour to which he has deposed that probably the complaint was received by the task force. However, no such written complaint is on record. He has also deposed in cross examination FIR No. 109/10 7/10 that photographs of the spot were taken, however, no such photographs are placed on record by the prosecution. He further deposed that he does not recollect whether any inquiry relating to the address of premises was made at that time.
25. Two witnesses who were examined as PW2 and PW3 were Members of Child Welfare Committee, have deposed that they do not remember the names of the children rescued by the team.
26. One Md. Usman, Child protection Assistant was examined as PW4. In his examination in chief, he submitted that he received a phone call to rescue the child labours. Thereafter he accompanied the rescue team to the premises. He deposed that he does not remember the exact address of the premises or the time of call which he received. Thus, these two witnesses were part of the raiding team which went for rescue purpose. As per his deposition, one lady was found at the spot. Another witness Jestin Joseph was examined as PW7 who has deposed that in his presence 7 children were rescued. He has deposed that on inquiry one lady was found to be the owner of the premises.
27. Thus, both witness PW4 and PW7, who were part of rescue team, failed to identify the accused.
28. PW8 Rajinder Singh Rawat who was working at NGO Butterfly has deposed that no documents pertaining to ownership of premises or factory were found nor any photographs of the spot were taken in his presence. PW9 to PW12 were the formal witnesses. PW13 was the duty officer who was examined to prove the Rukka Ex PW13/A and FIR Ex PW FIR No. 109/10 8/10 13/B. PW14 Inspector Dara Singh was the IO in the present matter. In his cross examination, he deposed that he had not collected any document with regard to the ownership/title documents of the premises. PW14 also deposed that he did not clicked photographs or videography of alleged factory premises. He also deposed that NGO did not made any public person to join the raid. He has also deposed that he has not made any of the rescued child a witness in the present case.
29. Thus, neither any document showing any kind of connection of the accused with premises in question has been placed on record nor any witness has been examined in order to prove the ownership of accused. Thus, considering the over all facts and circumstances, prosecution failed to prove that accused Samsuddin was the owner of the premises as they failed to show any document that he was the owner of the premises at the time of alleged raid. There is nothing on record to suggest that the raid was conducted on the premises of the accused, accused was the owner of the premises and he has employed the children. Prosecution miserably failed to prove even the conducting of the raid on the premises. None of the rescued child ever appeared before the court or were made as witness in the present case.
30. Thus, in conclusion, prosecution miserably failed to prove that factory was running and seven children were rescued from the premises. Prosecution also failed to prove that accused Samsuddin was the owner of the premises or he was having the actual charge or control over the juveniles/children. Thus, prosecution miserable failed to prove the charges against the accused.
FIR No. 109/10 9/1031. In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances, accused person is given benefit of doubt in this matter and accordingly, accused person namely Samsuddin is hereby acquitted for offence punishable under Section 23/26 of The Juvenile Justice (Child and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 and Section 16 Bonded Labour Act.
Announced in the Open (NUPUR GUPTA)
Court on 05.12.2020 MM11/SED/ Saket Courts/ND
FIR No. 109/10 10/10