Kerala High Court
K.V.Anilkumar vs The State Of Kerala on 26 October, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. BABU
THURSDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2023 / 4TH KARTHIKA, 1945
CRL.MC NO. 980 OF 2023
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT CC 2597/2017 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF
FIRST CLASS - I, ETTUMANOOR
PETITIONER/S:
K.V.ANILKUMAR
AGED 58 YEARS
S/O VELAYUDHAN KODATH HOUSE CHOWARA P.O. CHENGAMANAD
VILLAGE ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683571
BY ADVS.
S.SHANAVAS KHAN
S.INDU
KALA G.NAMBIAR
RESPONDENT/S:
THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF
KERALA ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
OTHER PRESENT:
M K PUSHPALETHA,PP
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 26.10.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
Crl.M.C.No.980 of 2023
2
K.BABU, J.
--------------------------------------
Crl. M C No. 980 of 2023
---------------------------------------
Dated this the 26th day of October, 2023
O R D E R
The petitioner is the accused in C.C.N0.
2597/2017 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of
First class-I, Ettumanoor which arose from Crime No.
48/2013 of Railway Police Station, Kottayam. He faces
charge under Section 26 of the Juvenile Justice (Care
and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (for short 'the
Act')
2. The allegation against the petitioner is that
he had employed a child aged 14 years, in connection
with the construction work of a railway platform, at
Ettumanoor Railway Station on 16.07.2013 at 9.30 am.
The Police completed the investigation and submitted
final report against the petitioner.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner
and the learned Public Prosecutor.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that the allegations raised by the
Crl.M.C.No.980 of 2023
prosecution do not reveal the offence under Sec.26 of
the Act. The learned counsel submitted that in the
final report there is no mention about any hazardous
employment or allegation of keeping the juvenile in
bondage or withholding of his earnings. The learned
counsel submitted that hazardous employment is
different from hard work. It is submitted that the
final report only alleges that the juvenile was found
on the northern end of the platform at Ettumanoor
Railway Station engaged in cutting iron bar. The
learned counsel relied on Faisal Vs. State of Kerala
[2015 (4) KLT 450], Eliyas Vs. State of Kerala [2018
KHC 841] and Prakash Vs. State of Kerala [2022 (6)
KLT 218] in support of his contentions.
5. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that
prosecution allegations reveal the engagement of the
child in hazardous employment, which is sufficient to
attract the offence under Sec.26 of the Act.
6. Section 26 of the Act reads thus:-
"26. 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 also be liable to
fine."
Crl.M.C.No.980 of 2023
7. To attract Sec.26 of the Act, the prosecution
has to establish the following:
i. The employer procured the juvenile or the
child for the purpose of hazardous employment.
ii. The employer kept him in bondage.
iii. The employer withheld his earnings or used
such earning for his own purpose.
The legislature intended to make the acts of procuring
a child for hazardous employment, keeping him in
bondage and withholding his earnings punishable under
Sec.26 of the Act. In Alice v State of Kerala, 2014
(2) KHC 106, this Court considered the meaning of the
term "hazardous" contained in Sec.26 of the Act and
held that the statute intended "hazardous" to indicate
the risk and heaviness of the job which the age of the
child cannot bear.
8. In Faisal (Supra) this Court observed that,
in order to attract Sec.26 of the Act, the prosecution
has to establish that the juvenile is employed for a
hazardous job without making proper and adequate
payment, wages or salary.
9. In Eliyas (Supra), following Faizal (Supra),
this Court reiterated the legal position. Following
Crl.M.C.No.980 of 2023
Eliyas and Faizal (Supra), this Court in Prakash
(Supra) held that, to bring home the offence under
Sec.26 of the Act, the burden is upon the prosecution
to establish that the juvenile was employed by the
petitioner for doing some hazardous work without
making adequate payment of salary or wages.
In the present case, the prosecution has failed
to bring forth those ingredients. The resultant
conclusion is that the prosecution failed to make out
the offence under Sec.26 of the Act. Therefore, the
entire proceedings pursuant to the registration of FIR
No. 48/2013 of Railway Police Station, Kottayam, which
is now pending before the Judicial Magistrate of First
class-I, Ettumanoor as C.C No. 2597/2017, are liable
to be quashed. I order so.
The Crl.M.C. is allowed as above.
Sd/-
K.BABU,
JUDGE
SM
