THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI CRIMINAL PETITION No. 11815 OF 2024

ORDER

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS, 2023’), seeking quashment of the proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.875 of 2020 on the file of the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Gadwal.

2. The petitioner is sole accused in the Calendar Case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 374 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘the I.P.C.’), Sections 3, 7, 8, 14 of the Child Labour (Prohibition And Regulation) Act, 1986 (for short ‘the Act, 1986’).

3. I have heard Mr.P.Vamsheedhar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, representing respondent No.1-State.

4. The case of the prosecution, in brief is that, on December 18, 2017, at approximately 11:30 hours, Respondent No. 2, accompanied by a specially constituted team, conducted a raid on the premises of Sri Laxmi Venkateswara Ginning and Processing Mills, located on the outskirts of Paramala Village in Gadwal Mandal. During the operation, fifteen (15)

minors were discovered working within the establishment, in contravention of applicable child labour laws.

Subsequently, a criminal case was registered against the petitioner, who is identified as the owner and proprietor of the said ginning and processing mill. Following a comprehensive investigation, a charge sheet was filed, and the matter was formally taken on the file of the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Gadwal, assigned Calendar Case No. 875 of 2020.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the individuals alleged to be victims in the present case are all above the age of 14 years and, therefore, qualify as adolescents under the relevant legal framework. Consequently, he argued that the essential ingredients constituting the alleged offences are not satisfied in the present case, and thus, the continuation of proceedings against the petitioner would be untenable. Accordingly, he prayed for the quashment of the proceedings. Further pointed to an order passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court, in Criminal Petition No. 5307 of 2024, and pleaded that after considering similar allegations and examining the merits of the case, quashed the criminal proceedings instituted against the petitioners therein.

6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, in response, fairly conceded that in the authority cited by the petitioner—arising under analogous factual and legal circumstances—this Court had indeed quashed the proceedings against the petitioner therein.

7. I have perused the materials on record.

8. Before delving into the factual matrix and the merits of the present case, it is considered appropriate, for the sake of clarity and comprehensive understanding, to first reproduce the provisions corresponding to the alleged offences, as extracted hereunder:

Section 374 IPC :

“374. Unlawful compulsory labour.—Whoever unlawfully compels any person to labour against the will of that person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.”

Sections 3, 7, 8 and 14 of the Act, 1986 :

“3. 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.

7. Hours and period of work.- (1) No child shall be required or permitted to work in any establishment in excess of such number of hours as may be prescribed for such establishment or class of