ORDER

The accused viz., Siraj Pasha, the revision petitioner has filed as revision petition against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Mulbagal in C.C.No.120/2011 dated 24.09.2012, which is confirmed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kolar in Crl.A.No.56/2012 dated 30.05.2015.

2. The rank of the parties in this appeal are referred to as per their status before the trial Court. 3. The brief facts of the prosecution case is that on 08.12.2010 at about 12:20 p.m., the complainant who is the Labour Inspector along with the Labour Inspectors of Kolar, Bangarapet and K.G.F went and inspected the garage by name C.S.Garage in Mulbagal. At that time, he found a child labour by name Imran Pasha, aged between 10 and 11 years working in the said garage, which is an hazardous industry and the accused being the owner of the garage has employed the labour. Then the complainant has prepared the spot note and also obtained statement of child labour and accused has not produced any documents in respect of the age of the child labour. The copy of the inspection note was given to the accused and he has acknowledged the receipt of the same by signing on the same. The complainant also conducted spot panchanama at the spot and then took the child labour to the Government Hospital, Mulbagal and obtained the medical certificate. The dentist has certified that child labour was aged between 10 and 11 years. Subsequently, the child labour was admitted to Government Urdu Higher Primary School and he has issued notice dated 21.12.2010 to the accused, but the accused has not replied. Hence, he has filed a complaint against the accused for the commission of offence punishable under Section 3 read with Section 14 of Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986.

4. After taking cognizance against the accused, the case was registered in C.C.No.120/2011 and summons was issued to the accused. In response to the summons, the accused appeared before this court and was enlarged on bail . Substance of plea was recorded and accused pleaded not guilty and came to be tried.

5. To substantiate the case of the prosecution, 3 witnesses were examined as PW1 to PW3 and 12 documents were marked at Ex.P1 to Ex.P12. On closure of prosecution side evidence, statement of the accused under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was recorded. The accused has denied the evidence of prosecution witnesses, but he has not chosen to lead any defence evidence on his behalf .

6. On hearing the arguments, the trial court has convicted the accused for the commission of offence punishable under Section 3 read with Section 14 of Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986 and sentenced him to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of six months with a fine of Rs.15,000/-. In default to pay fine, accused shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of three months. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the accused viz., Siraj Pasha has preferred an appeal before the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kolar in Crl.A.No.56/2012 and the same was dismissed on 30.05.2015. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the appeal and also conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial court, the revision petitioner has preferred this appeal.

7. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner has submitted his arguments that the trial court has wrongly convicted the petitioner based on the witnesses who are all the government employees and there is no independent and private witnesses to support the case of the prosecution. The child labour is not examined before the trial court. There is no eyewitness to show that the petitioner has employed child labour. Further, it is submitted that if this court has come to the conclusion that prosecution has proved its case, then this court may modify the order of sentence by imposing fine only, the revision petitioner has already paid t