Court No. - 58
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 6539 of 2007 Applicant :- Ramdas Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Others Counsel for Applicant :- Mahipal Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Ashutosh Srivastava,J.
The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed assailing the summoning order dated 26.10.2002 and order dated 24.2.2007 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut, in Case No.10529 of 2002 (State of U.P. Vs. Ramdas Yadav) instituted under the provisions of Child Labour (Prevention and Regulatory) Act, 1986. A further prayer to quash the entire proceedings in the aforesaid complaint case has also been prayed.
The facts, in brief, giving rise to the above mentioned criminal misc. application are that the opposite party no.2, the Labour Enforcement Officer/Inspector had instituted a compliant on 10.10.2002 under Section 14(i) of the Child Labour (Prevention and Regulatory) Act, 1986 alleging therein that on inspection being carried out in the establishment of the applicant, it was revealed that six child labourers of less than 14 years were found working in violation of provisions of the Child Labour (Prevention and Regulatory) Act, 1986. The learned Magistrate took cognizance and passed summoning order against the applicant requiring his appearance in the case. The applicant filed his objections against the summoning order stating that he has no establishment in the name of M/s Hanuman Brick Field and he is neither occupier/owner or partner of the said establishment. He has not received any notice as alleged in the complaint nor any document or record to establish his ownership or partner in the said establishment is on record. It was also stated in the objections that in terms of Section 10 of Child Labour (Prevention and Regulatory) Act, 1986 the medical examination of all the child labourers was conducted for determining their ages by the Chief Medical Officer, Meerut and all the labourers were found to be major. The applicant has also filed the registered partnership deed pertaining to the establishment of M/s Hanuman Brick Field to demonstrate that he is neither owner nor partner.
On the strength of above documents, learned counsel for the applicant submits that since the applicant is nowhere connected with the establishment in question and also in view of the fact that the medical examination of the alleged child labourers has been conducted by the Chief Medical Officer, Meerut and the respective ages of the alleged child labourers have been found to be more than 14 years of age, no offence under the provisions of Child Labour (Prevention and Regulatory) Act, 1986 can be said to be made out against the applicant and the complaint instituted by the opposite party no.2 is completely frivolous and has been lodged with ulterior motive and as such, liable to be quashed.
A perusal of the order-sheet of the case reveals that this Court vide order dated 30.10.2007 while staying the further proceedings of the complaint case no.10529 of 2002 pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut, issued notices to the opposite party no.2 and in pursuance thereof, the opposite party no.2 filed his para-wise comments, which are on record.
The comments of the opposite party no.2 reveal that nothing has been said about the medical examination of the alleged child labourers and the factum that the age of the alleged child labourers were more than 14 years has not been disputed. The age certificates of each of the child labourers have been collectively filed as Annexure-4 to the affidavit filed in support of the criminal misc. application. The certificates issued by the Chief Medical Officer, Meerut certify that each of the child labourers are major and have ages 17-1/2 years, 19 years, 21 years, 22 years, 19 years and 20 years respectively, meaning thereby each of them are major.
The question as to whether the applicant is the owner/partner of M/s Hanuman Brick Field where the inspection was carried out, need not be gone into, as the report about the medical examination of the alleged child labourers found working in the establishment are on record and each of the labourers have been found to be major.
In view of the above, since the labourers working in the establishment, on medical examination, have been found to be major (more than 14 years of age) as such, no offence under Section 14 (i) of the Child Labour (Prevention and Regulatory) Act, 1986 is made out against the applicant. Consequently, the complaint No.10529 of 2002 (State of U.P. Vs. Ramdas Yadav) pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut is liable to be quashed and is hereby quashed.
The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. stands allowed.
Order Date :- 16.12.2021 pks