Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
Y.LAKSHMANA RAO
Gudala Narasimha Rao S/o Mahankali Rao – Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. s.t.c. no.2 of 2009 confirmed conviction for child labor. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. appellant contests jurisdiction and evidence validity. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. revisional jurisdiction exercised based on procedural clarity. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. appellate court upheld findings; no procedural errors. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 5. revision dismissed; charge proven. (Para 21) |
ORDER :
1. 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 establishmen
Judicial discretion in imposing minimum penalties under child labour statutes must be adhered to, with revisional jurisdiction being exercised only in cases of glaring procedural defects or manifest ....
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.
Point of Law : Scope Of Revisional Jurisdiction -.CR.P.C makes provision for the High Court to exercise its Revisional Jurisdiction in furtherance of any proceeding before any inferior Criminal Court....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of following the prescribed procedure for determining juvenility under the Juvenile Justice Act, including the specific inquiry proc....
The court affirmed that minor discrepancies in evidence do not invalidate a conviction under Section 498-A IPC, emphasizing the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction.
The court reaffirmed that age determination for juveniles must rely on credible documents, prioritizing educational certificates over voter lists.
The court upheld the conviction for causing death by negligence, emphasizing the reliability of eyewitness testimony and the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction.
Concurrent findings of guilty must be upheld unless glaring defects are present or a miscarriage of justice occurs; professional drivers may not qualify for probation under Section 304-A IPC.
The court must conduct a comprehensive enquiry to determine age when evidence is contradictory, ensuring adherence to the Juvenile Justice Act's guidelines for juvenile claims.
The court affirmed the conviction for negligent driving, emphasizing that revisional jurisdiction should not disturb concurrent findings unless there is a manifest injustice.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
