In this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner, who is the first accused in CC. No. 175 of 2010 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam for offences punishable under Section 3 of the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act and Section 23 of the Juvenile Justice Act, seeks to quash Annexure A1 final report.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner is the owner of a shop room namely 'Anoop Stores' situated at Mullassery Canal Road, Ernakulam. He let out the shop room to accused Nos. 2 and 3, who are natives of Jharkhand State and they allegedly employed two juveniles.

3. CW14, the Inspector of Police, Central Police Station along with two childline workers, on getting some reliable information went to the shop and removed CWs 3 and 4, who were present in the shop and effected the arrest of the petitioner on 22.06.2010 and thereafter registered the FIR. After conducting the investigation, Annexure I final report was filed before the trial court.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was the owner of a shop room bearing No.910/40 situated near Mullassery Canal in P.T Usha Road at Ernakulam and that he rented out the same to accused Nos. 2 and 3 who were conducting a tea shop in the said room. He has also submitted that the petitioner did not have any nexus with the business of accused Nos. 2 and 3, who were in actual control and management of the petty tea shop. He has further submitted that it appears that accused Nos. 2 and 3 had engaged the services of two minor boys named Mohamed Kalam and Irshad (CWs 3 and 4), who were the natives of Andhra Pradesh to work in the shop. The petitioner's counsel contends that there are no allegations in Annexure A1 final report to attract the above provisions of law against the petitioner, and that to attract Section 3 of the Act, there must be a positive averment in the final report that the respective accused has employed or permitted to work in any of the occupation set forth in part A of the schedule to the Act or in any workshop. Only when the said Section stands attracted, the penalty under Section 14 of the Act would come into play.

5. Section 3 of the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986 deals with the prohibition of employment of children in certain occupations and process. It reads thus:

3. Prohibition of employment of children in certain occupations and processes.- No child shall be employed or permitted to work in any of the occupations set forth in Part A of the Schedule or in any workshop wherein any of the processes set forth in Part B of the Schedule is carried on:

Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to any workshop wherein any process is carried on by the occupier with the aid of his family or to any school established by, or receiving assistance or recognition from, Government.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that either Section 3 of the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986 or Sections 23 or 26 of the JJ Act is applicable in this case. Sections 23 and 26 of the J.J. Act read thus:

23. Punishment for cruelty to juvenile or child.- Whoever, having the actual charge of, or control over, a juvenile or the child, assaults, abandons, exposes or wilfully neglects the juvenile or causes or procures him to be assaulted, abandoned, exposes or neglected in a manner likely to cause juveniles or the child unnecessary mental or physical suffering shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or fine, or with both.

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

7. According to the petitioner's counsel, Section 23 of th