The absence of documentary evidence regarding a child's age in child labor cases necessitates quashing proceedings, as age determination must involve medical authority.

ORDER :

(Sujana Kalasikam, J.)

1. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/accused in C.C.No.499 of 2022 on the file of the learned I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad, registered for the offences punishable under Section 3 read with 14 of the Child Labour (Prohibition And Regulation) Act, 1986 (for short 'the Act').

2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent No.2, who is a Labour Officer, lodged a complaint before the Police stating that as a part of operation Smile VIII, he along with operation simile saifabad Division team rescued a child boy by name P. Sai Charan, aged 11 years, working as helper at Dhanalaxmi Medical and General Stores, Chintalbasthi Main Road, Khairathabad, Hyderabad. The child was employed by the petitioner. Basing on the said complaint, the Police registered a case against the petitioner in Crime No.14 of 2022 for the offence punishable under Section 3 read with 14 of the Act and after completion of investigation, they filed charge sheet, vide C.C.No.499 of 2022 before the learned I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad.

3. Heard Sri K. Rathanga Pani Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri D. Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No.1-State.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that except the bald allegation that the petitioner has employed the child of 11 years, there is no documentary evidence to show that the age of the child is 11 years. He further submitted that the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged by respondent No.2. Even in the entire complaint and charge sheet, there is no, prima facie, material evidence to show that the child is below 12 years, which is mandatory under the Act. Further, it is settled principle of law that age of the person cannot be determined on the basis of oral evidence.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner has already paid an amount of Rs.20,000/- as compensation in terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in M.C. Mehta vs. State of Tamilnadu and others, (1996) 6 SCC 756 or W.P.(c)No.465 of 1996. Therefore, the allegation against the petitioner do not constitute any offence, as such, he prayed the Court to quash the proceedings against him.

6. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of the then High Court of Andhra Pradesh in P. Ramachander Rao vs. State of Andhra Pradesh AP, 2006 (1) ALD (crl) 883 (AP), wherein in paragraph Nos. 7 to 10, it is held as follows:

7. Child is defined in Section 2(ii) of the Act, which reads as follows:

"'Child' means a person who has not completed his fourteenth year of age."

8. Under Section 3 of the Act, 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 workship 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.

9. Section 10 of the Act deals with disputes as the age, which reads as follows:

"If any question arises between an inspector and an occupier as to the age of any child who is employed or is permitted to work by him in an establishment, the question shall, in the absence of a certificate as to the age of such child granted by the prescribed medical authority, be referred by the Inspector for decision to the prescribed medical authority."

10. Section 14 (1) of the Act deals with penalties, which reads as follows:

"Whoever employs any child or permits any child to work in contravention of the provisions of Section 3 shall be punishable with impriso