Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the State.

2. This application has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding of GOCR case no.26 of 2011 including the order dated 13.10.2011 whereby and whereunder cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 14(1)(a) of the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act has been taken against the petitioner and others.

3. The case of the complainant as it appears from the complaint petition is that when the opposite party no.2, Labour Enforcement Officer-cum-Inspector made an inspection at the works site where the work was being executed by a company known as M/s. Reddy Veerana Construction Pvt. Ltd. to which this petitioner is the Managing Director, it was found that a child labour had also been engaged to execute the work of construction of road.

4. Therefore, a complaint was lodged alleging therein that the petitioner being Managing Director of M/s. Reddy Veerana Construction Pvt. Ltd. has contravened the provision of Section 3 of the Child Laour (Prohibition and Regulation)Act punishable under Section 14(1) of the said Act.

5. On such complaint, cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 14(1) of the Child Laour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act was taken which is under challenge.

6. Mr. Majumdar, learned Sr. counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that on the allegation of contravention of the provision of the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation )Act, the petitioner, the Managing Director of the Company, M/s. Reddy Veeranna Construction Pvt. Ltd. is being prosecuted under the said Act though there has been absolutely no allegation that this petitioner was responsible to and was In-charge of day-do-day affairs of the Company and, thereby the order taking cognizance suffers from illegality.

7. It was further submitted that since the Company has not been made accused and in absence of the Company being made accused, the petitioner, who is Director of the Company cannot be prosecuted.

8. In support of his submission, learned counsel has referred to a decision rendered in a case of Maksud Saiyed Vs. State of Gujarat and others [(2008) 5 SCC 668].

9. A counter affidavit has been filed wherein it has been stated that when the complainant did find contravention of certain rules, notice was given to this petitioner for compliance of the said rules but in spite of notice being given, the said rule has not been complied with nor any reply to that notice has been given.

10. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, it does appear that the petitioner, who happens to be the Managing Director of M/s. Reddy Veeranna Construction Pvt. Ltd. is being prosecuted for contravention of the provision as contained in Section 3 of the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986 as one child labour was found working at the work site from whom work of construction of a road was being taken. Thus, the question does arise as to whether on such allegation one can be said to have contravened the provision of Section 3 of the Act?

11. Section 3 reads as follows:

“ 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.”

12. From its perusal it does appear that under the aforesaid provision, one has been prohibited to take work in any of the occupations set forth in Part A of the Schedule. Part A does stipulate about the occupation in which work cannot be taken from a child labour.

13. Part A of the Schedule is as follows:

An occupation connection