The court established that mere licensing does not imply control or charge over child laborers under Sections 75 and 79 of the Juvenile Justice Act.

ORDER :

The 1^st accused in S.C.1154 of 2023 on the file of the First Additional Sessions Court, Palakkad arising out of crime No.473 of 2018 of Sreekrishnapuram police station, preferred this petition under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (in short, BNSS ), praying for quashing all further proceedings against him. The offences alleged against the petitioner along with the other accused persons are under Sections 75 and 79 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act (In short, JJ Act).

2. The prosecution case is that the accused persons 2 and 3, with the intention to make profit, brought CWs 6, 7, 8, 10 to 18 from Jharkhand and Bihar and engaged them for labour in the rubber band manufacturing unit by name 'Classic Rubbers' conducted by the 1^st accused in building No.12/237 of Sreekrishnapuram panchayat, during the period from 18.1.2018 till 19.6.2018 and subjected them to work in unsafe atmosphere and thereby they alleged to have committed the aforesaid offences.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that though the petitioner is the licensee of the above industrial unit, it is being run by accused persons 2 and 3 and even as per the prosecution case, they were engaged by accused persons 2 and 3, that the petitioner had no role in engaging them for the work and therefore, he prayed for quashing all further proceedings against the petitioner. Further, the learned counsel would argue that even as per the allegations raised in the final report, the offences alleged under Section 75 and 79 of the JJ Act are not made out against the petitioner.

4. On the other hand, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor Sri.Vipin Narayan strongly opposed the prayer for quashing the proceedings and prayed for dismissing the petition.

5. Now the point that arises for consideration is the following :-

Whether the allegations against the petitioner makes out the offences under Section 75 and 79 of the JJ Act ?

6. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, though the petitioner is the licensee of the rubber band manufacturing unit, it is being run by accused persons 2 and 3. Further, according to him, even as per the statements given by the child witnesses, the offences alleged under Section 75 and 79 of the JJ Act are not made out against the petitioner.

7. For the purpose of convenience, Sections 75 and 79 of the JJ Act are extracted below for reference :

75. Punishment for cruelty to child. Whoever, having the actual charge of, or control over, a child, assaults, abandons, abuses, exposes or wilfully neglects the child or causes or procures the child to be assaulted, abandoned, abused, exposed or neglected in a manner likely to cause such child unnecessary mental or physical suffering, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years or with fine of one lakh rupees or with both:

Provided that in case it is found that such abandonment of the child by the biological parents is due to circumstances beyond their control, it shall be presumed that such abandonment is not wilful and the penal provisions of this section shall not apply in such cases.

Provided further that if such offence is committed by any person employed by or managing an organisation, which is entrusted with the care and protection of the child, he shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment which may extend up to five years, and fine which may extend up to five lakhs rupees.

Provided also that on account of the aforesaid cruelty, if the child is physically incapacitated or develops a mental illness or is rendered mentally unfit to pe