IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized the importance of weighing the evidence to determine a prima facie case against the accused and highlighted the need for sufficient grounds to proceed with the trial.

JUDGMENT :

1. This revision application is filed under section 397 and 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “Cr.PC) challenging the judgment and order passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Navsari below Exh.3 in Criminal Case No. 1976 of 2014 whereby, the application preferred by the present applicant praying to discharge from the offence came to be rejected. It is the case of the prosecution that one FIR came to be lodged on 07.01.2014 being CR NO.II- 2 of 2014 with Navsari (Rural) Police Station for the offence punishable under section 23 and 26 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000.

2. It is alleged by the complainant namely Shobhanaben who is a social worker that one offence came to be registered being I-CR NO. of 249 of 2013 under sections 342, 376 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”) wherein, the victim namely A and victim namely B were alleged to be working with the pauwa Industries run by the present applicant. It is alleged in the FIR that the victims were exploited by forcing to work under the present applicant who engaged in the pauwa Industries of the applicant. On registration of the FIR, investigation was carried out and on conclusion of the investigation, the charge-sheet came to be filed:

3. After filing the charge-sheet the application was filed below Exh.3 before the learned trial Court by the applicant stating that there is no evidence suggesting the involvement of present applicant and no material evidence were collected during the investigation except the statements which are recorded in the FIR at I-CR No.249/2013 registered for the offence punishable under sections 342, 376 and 34 of the IPC. It is contended that there is no evidence collected during the investigation showing that these two juveniles were engaged by the present applicant for employment and in a casual manner the charge-sheets were submitted by the Investigating Officer for the alleged offences.

4. Learned trial court, after considering the arguments advanced by the respective parties and the material placed on record, rejected the application on the ground that as per the complaint victim A and victim B were working in the factory of the applicant and therefore, applicant is required to be tried for the alleged charges.

5. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the said order present revision application was preferred by the applicant-original accused.

6. Heard learned advocate Mr. Kush Bavishi for learned advocate Mr.P.P Majmudar and learned APP Ms.Jirga Jhaveri for the State.

7. Mr.Bavishi, Learned advocate for the applicant has submitted that investigation was carried out in a casual manner by the Investigating Officer and only on relying on the complaint, the charge-sheet was submitted. The counter of the charge-sheet which was produced at page 29 states that no statement was recorded during the investigation of the present offence. However, the statement which were earlier recorded for the offences in FIR being I-CR NO. 249/2013 were produced as a part of the investigation and on this material evidence the present applicant was claimed to be tried.

8. Learned advocate Mr.Bavishi submits that even considering the alleged sections i.e section 23 and section 26 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, there were no hazardous activities going on in the factory of the present applicant and for that also the applicant is required to be discharged from the alleged offences.

9. Learned advocate Mr.Bavishi submits that when there is no legal evidence showing the involvement of the applicant, framing of the charge and compelling the applicant to face the trial would unnecessary harassment to the applicant. Learned advocate Mr.Bavishi prays that in absence of the material, the revision application preferred by the applicant is required to be allowed and applicant is required to be discharged from the alleged charges.

10. As ag