The court upheld the conviction for employing child labour, affirming that evidence from Labour Department officials was sufficient and no procedural irregularities warranted revisional intervention.

ORDER :

Y. Lakshmana Rao, J.

The revision was directed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘the Cr.P.C .,’) against the judgment in Crl.A.No.174 of 2010 dated 28.10.2010 on the file of the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, (First Track Court), Bhimavaram, whereunder the judgment passed by the learned II Additional First Class Magistrate, Bhimavaram, in S.T.C.No.2 of 2009 dated 14.06.2010 imposing a fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) on the revisionist for the commission of offence punishable under Section 14(1) of Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation)Act, 1986 (for brevity ‘the Act’), was confirmed.

2. The case of the prosecution was that on 27.07.2007 at about 11:00 a.m, PW.2 G. Raju, Assistant Labour Officer had inspected the establishment of the revisionist along with PW.2 S. Amar Kumar, the Assistant Labour Officer and Inspector under ‘the Act’, 1^st Circle, Bhimavaram found a child worker by name Nakka Ramudu, aged about 12 years, therefore, a complaint under Section 14(1) of ‘the Act’, was filed.

3. The learned Trial Court examined PW.1 and PW.2 the officials of the Labour Department and got marked Ex.P1 to P6 during the trial. After considering the oral and documentary evidence the learned Trial Court imposed a sentence of minimum fine against the revisionist as mentioned above.

4. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor.

5. Sri I.V.N. Raju, the learned counsel for the petitioner challenged the impugned judgment on the following grounds:

a) There was no jurisdiction enjoined by the PW.1;

b) No independent witnesses were examined;

c) The learned Trial Court and the Appellate Court failed to appreciate the facts that the child was not working under the revisionist;

d) The age of the alleged child labour was in serious dispute;

e) There were serious contradictions and omissions in the statements of PW.1 and PW.2;

f) The parents of the alleged child labour were not examined let alone child labour;

g) No mediators were secured and no mediators report was drafted.

Therefore, it was urged to interfere in the revision and set aside the impugned judgment. Alternatively, the learned counsel for the petitioner requested this Court to reduce the sentence of fine imposed on the revisionist.

6. Per contra, Mr K. Sandeep, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently argued that there was jurisdiction enjoined by the PW.1 as per Section 7 of ‘the Act’ because there was a notification empowering the Inspector to conduct raids; non-examination of independent witnesses is not fatal to the case of the prosecution since PW.1 and PW.2 are the direct witnesses of the occurrence and the special officers entrusted with the special powers under ‘the Act’. The contention that the child labour was not employed by the revisionist is untenable because PW.1 and PW.2 were the direct eye- witnesses who deposed that the child was employed in the establishment of the revisionist; the age of the child labour cannot be disputed since the certificate issued by the Head Master, Z.P.H.School, Polamur clearly shows that the age of the child labour was 12 years. The minimum sentence of fine was imposed on the petitioner is 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) as per Section 14(1) of ‘the Act’. Therefore, less than that minimum fine amount, no fine amount can be imposed as it is against the statute; the learned Trail Court and the Appellate Court rightly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence and came to the correct conclusion and appropriately sentenced the revisionist; there are no grounds let alone the valid grounds raised in the revision and urged to dismiss the revision.

7. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. I have perused the record.

8. Now the point for consideration is:

Whether the judgment in Crl.A.No.174 of 2010 da