IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 21.02.2025 Rajneesh Mittal ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.S.SHEKHAWAT Present : Mr. Viren Jain, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Deepinder Singh Brar, Sr. DAG, Punjab.

N.S.SHEKHAWAT , J. (Oral)

1. The petitioner has filed the present revision petition under Section 401 Cr.P.C. with a prayer to set aside the impugned order dated 05.04.2018 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana as well as charge sheet dated 05.04.2018 (Annexure P-5), whereby, the charge under Section 370 of IPC and Sections 23, 26, 17 and 20 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 was ordered to be framed against the present petitioner.

2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, on 16.11.2019, this Court had noticed the following submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner:-

“Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised two points; firstly, that the allegation against the petitioner is that he had employed child labour and secondly, that the child labour was also bonded labour. He has argued that the charge has been framed against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 23 of Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2000, which was abrogated by the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2015, which came into force w.e.f 15.01.2016, as such, charge for the offence punishable under Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2000 could not be framed. There is no corresponding offence provided in the new Act of 2015. Learned trial Court before framing the charge, has not tried to find out as to whether any of the worker, alleged as child labour, was minor at the time of alleged commission of offence on 28.04.2016.”

3. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner has reiterated the above submissions. He further contends that even from the allegations levelled by the complainant, no offence under Section 370 IPC and Sections 23, 26, 17 and 20 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 is made out against the present petitioner. Even, the alleged raid was conducted on 28.04.2016 and on the said date, the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 already stood repealed and was no more existing on the statute book. He has further placed reliance on the gazette notification dated 12.01.2016 issued by the Ministry of Women and Child Development, whereby, the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (Act No. 2 of 2016) had come into force w.e.f. 15.01.2016. Thus, the charge was wrongly framed by the trial Court against the present petitioner.

4. On the other hand, learned State counsel has vehemently argued that Section 75 was incorporated in the new Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 and the same reads as under:-

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 u