The essential ingredients for an offence under Section 26 of the Juvenile Justice Act must be demonstrably substantiated.

ORDER

The petitioner is the accused in CC No.1615/2017 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Aluva. The offence alleged against him is under Section 26 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act , 2000.

2. The prosecution case is that on 03.08.2011 at about 12.45 pm, the petitioner had employed a minor, aged 15 years, in his establishment for the purpose of putty work related to painting of the ground floor of a building under construction. Thus, the petitioner is alleged to have committed the aforesaid offence.

3. In the present petition, the petitioner would contend that he is totally innocent, and that he has been falsely implicated in this case.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State of Kerala.

5. Section 26 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act , 2000 reads as follows:

‘Exploitation of juvenile or child employee.- Whoever ostensibly procures a juvenile or the child for the purpose of any hazardous employment keeps him in bondage and withholds his earnings or uses such earning for his own purposes shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall be liable to fine.’

6. The essential ingredients to be brought out to attract Section 26 are (1) the juvenile or child should have been ostensibly procured for the purpose of a hazardous employment, (2) the juvenile or child so procured for hazardous employment shall be kept in bondage, and (3) the offender should have withheld the earnings of that juvenile or used such earnings for his own purposes.

If only, all the above ingredients are brought out, a person could be said to have committed the offence under Section 26 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act , 2000.

7. As far as the present case is concerned, the prosecution records do not disclose any of the above ingredients to show that the petitioner committed the offence under Section 26 of the said Act. There is nothing on record to show that the putty work alleged to have been done by the juvenile could be termed as hazardous employment.

So also, there is absolutely nothing on record to show that the juvenile was kept in bondage. At the same time, the statement of the brother of the juvenile, a copy of which the petitioner has produced as Annexure A3, would reveal that the juvenile had come to the place of employment of his brother (CW3) during school vacation, and that he had gone to his workplace during leisure time. Therefore, it has to be stated that the statement of CW3 itself would reveal that the juvenile concerned was not kept under bondage in order to attract offence under Section 26 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act , 2000. So also, there is total absence of material to show that the earnings of the juvenile were withheld, or used for the own purposes of the petitioner. In that view of the matter, it has to be stated that the offence under of the , 2000, is not attracted even if the entire prosecution records are accepted as such. Therefore, the prayer of the petitioner to terminate the prosecution proceedings against him, deserves to be allowed.

In the result, the petition stands allowed. The proceedings against the petitioner/accused in CC No.1615 of 2017 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Aluva, which arose out of Crime No.523/2011 of Chengamanad Police Station, are hereby quashed.

Sd/-