S.S. Satheesachandran, J.

1. Petitioner is the accused in a pending case on the file of the Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram. He is being prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 26 of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2000, for short, 'the Act'.

2. Petitioner is operating a bakery. He employed in that bakery a juvenile, aged 17 years, who hailed from Nepal, is the gist of the accusation to proceed against him for the aforesaid offence, on a report filed by the Sub Inspector of Police, Peroorkada Police Station. During the course of law and order patrol duty, the aforesaid Sub Inspector got information of the employment of a juvenile in the bakery of petitioner. He reached that bakery and, then, found a juvenile employed in that business concern, is the case of the prosecution for registration of the crime and, later, indictment of the petitioner for the offence under Section 26 of the Act. Petitioner has filed the above petition for quashing the criminal proceedings against him contending that none of the ingredients of the offence under Section 26 of the Act has been made out to prosecute him. Employment of a juvenile, that too aged 17 years, in a bakery, by itself, is not sufficient to prosecute him for the aforesaid offence, is the challenge projected to quash Annexure 2 final report and cognizance of the offence taken thereunder by the Sessions Court to proceed against him.

3. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Public Prosecutor.

4. Annexure 2 is the final report filed before the court after conducting investigation in the crime. That report includes some other annexures -statements recorded from the material witnesses during the investigation of the crime. Going through the report and statements, it is evidently clear that the prosecution against the petitioner solely rests on the allegation that he has employed a juvenile aged 17 years in his bakery shop. Whether employment of a juvenile who is stated to be aged 17 years in a bakery shop by itself would constitute an offence under Section 26 of the Act, is the question emerging for consideration.

5. The question to be considered is whether employment of juvenile as such in any activity which is not of a hazardous nature falls within the mischief covered by Section 26 of the Act.

Section 26 of the Act reads thus:

26. Exploitation of juvenile or child employee: -Whoever ostensibly procures a juvenile or the child for the purpose of any hazardous employment keeps him in bondage and withholds his earnings or uses such earnings for his own purposes shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine."

A reading of the Section clearly spells out that the employment of juvenile or child to constitute an offence must be one which by its nature is hazardous. Over and above the nature of hazardous employment the section also contemplates of keeping the juvenile or child in bondage and withholding his earnings or using of such earnings by his employer.

The aforesaid Section is analogous to Section 44 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, which read thus:

44: Exploitation of Juvenile employees: -Whoever ostensibly procures a juvenile for the purpose of any employment and withholds the earnings of the juvenile or uses such earnings for his own purposes shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.

Changes brought about under Section 26 of the new Act by additions, qualifying or restricting the applicability of exploitation to 'hazardous' employment with the addition 'keeping in bondage', which was not there in Section 44 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, definitely have some significance. The aforesaid expressions newly added in the section, no doubt, are the extension of the reflection and in fact imbibing of the spirit of the principles enunciated under Articles 23 and 24