SURESH KAIT, J. 1. In the instant case, a girl namely Reshma, who was aged about ten years at the time when the inspection was carried out, was staying with the consent of her grandmother Smt. Tara Bai with the respondent. Keeping in view the child’s unfortunate past who had been abandoned by her father and her mother was of an unsound mind, her grandmother thought it would be in the best interest for the granddaughter’s future, if she be handed over to the respondent’s family. Accordingly, she did.

2. But, bad luck of the child, on the complaint of President, Scientific Welfare Society, IARI, Pusa, New Delhi, a joint operation/inspection was conducted on 24.11.2009 at House No.19B, First Floor, Scientific Apartment, Pusa Campus, New Delhi wherein the respondent resides alongwith his family and a girl child namely Reshma, who was found to have been working as domestic help for the last 01 years and was immediately rescued from the said house.

3. The said child was produced by Child Welfare Committee, Nirmal Chaaya, Jail Road, New Delhi on 30.11.2009, and made a statement as under:-

“Child Reshma produced by WO Sheweta. The child requested the committee to send her back to her aunty, where she was living as she was missing her. The child shared that she was staying with Mrs. Jasmine Ahmad as her grandmother had sent her there owing poverty and Mrs. Ahmed had for affection of her grandmother offered to rear her. Reshma’s father had abandoned her in childhood and her mother is of unsound mind and is not traceable, therefore, her grandmother, who is old, could not look after her. When questioned on salary / payment made to her, she said that all her money that she had was kept with Ms. Jasmine. The child was told that she cannot be given back to aunty. Thus, she wanted to go with her Naani to Kolkata.”

4. On perusal of the statement of the child, wherein she categorically stated that she requested the Committee to send her back to her aunty (respondent) where she was living as she was missing her.

5. Ld. Trial Court in Para 15 of the impugned judgment has recorded that child Reshma spoke in volumes about her relation with the respondent family. It is further recorded she was being brought up by respondent and his wife as a child of their own and she was not hired for any money at all. She was given to the respondent’s family by her grandmother, who felt it extremely difficult to maintain her, as the father of the child had abandoned in her childhood and her mother was not traceable being of an unsound mind.

6. Ld. Trial Judge has also recorded that a little girl when she was in custody of the Child Welfare Committee for about six days, i.e. when there was no chance of her being influenced or contacted by respondent and his family.

7. The said child was handed over to Smt. Tara Bai. At the time of receiving back the child from the aforesaid Committee witnessed by Sh. Ali-Ul-Islam, who is the father-in-law of the respondent. Thus the said child Reshma would be staying with the grandmother in the house of the respondents.

8. It is further recorded that the statement of Smt. Tara Bai was recorded by the police on 30.11.2009, wherein she has reiterated what Reshma had told in her statement to Child Welfare Committee as mentioned above. She also stated that she was living in a house of Islam Sahib, father-in-law of the respondent in West Bengal for the past 10-12 years and she had sent a girl child Reshma to the house of Jasmine (daughter of Islam Saheb) and wife of the respondent with the instruction to give her proper education and also to arrange for her marriage.

9. Ld. APP for appellant submits that by keeping the said child the respondent has violated Section 26 of the Juvenile Act, Section 3 of Child Labour Act, Section 6 of Bonded Labour Act and Section 344 and 374 of IPC.

10. She further submits as per the report of the Committee, the said child was found in the house of the respondent while working as a labourer.

11. Vide orde