Telangana High Court

Naresh Thapar vs Ch. Sailu on 13 October, 2022

Bench: K.Surender

           THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

              CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 7148 OF 2020

ORDER:

1. This petition is filed to quash the proceedings in SC No.354 of

2019 on the file of V Additional District and Sessions Judge,

Bhongir.

2. The petitioner is A1, who is the Director of SPS Yarns Private

Limited, situated at Jalalpur Village, Pochampally Mandal. On

09.01.2018, police received reliable information that the

management of SPS Yarns Private Limited procured children from

other States with the help of contractors who are all minors and

employed them as labourers without providing basic amenities.

Accordingly, the team consisting of Sub-Inspector of Police,

Choutuppal and others went to the factory and found 11 children,

who are all minors working as labourers in the factory. It was also

found that the petitioner with the help of A3 and A4 was procuring

child labourers from other States. The 11 children who were

rescued were produced before the Child Welfare Officer at

Nalgonda. Investigation was undertaken and during the course of

investigation, it was revealed that the petitioner was the Managing

Director of SPS Yarns Private Limited and A2 was part of

Management staff, A3 and A4 were labour contractors and agents,

who procured labour including child labour to the company from

various places.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the company

SPS Yarns Private Limited is not made as an accused, for which

reason, the prosecution is bad in law and the proceedings against

the petitioner, who is the Managing Director has to be quashed.

Further, even according to the investigation, it was A3 and A4, who

had procured the child labour, as such, the petitioner cannot be

prosecuted for the offences under Sections 370(5), 374 of IPC,

Section 79 of Juvenile Justice Act and Section 14(1) of Child

Labour Act, 1986 and Section 16(23) of the Bonded Labour System

(Abolition) Act, 1976. In support of his contentions, he relied on

the judgments in the cases of; i) Sharad Kumar Sanghi v. Sangita

Rane1 and argued that in the absence of the company being

arrayed as an accused, the proceedings have to be quashed; ii)

Sunil Bharti Mittal v. Central Bureau of Investigation2 and

argued that unless there is incriminating evidence against the

Directors, they cannot be roped in as accused; iii) Order in

Criminal Petition No.315 of 2021, dated 22.03.2022 of the High

(2015) 12 Supreme Court Cases 781

(2015) 4 Supreme Court Cases 609

Court of Andhra Pradesh, wherein the learned Judge while relying

upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Sharad Kumar

Sanghi v. Sangita Rane (supra) held that the company being a

legal entity and unless the company is made as a co-accused,

complaint cannot be maintained and consequently quashed the

proceedings under Section 420 of IPC.

4. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor submits that

the police has formed into a team and on reliable information

raided the premises of the company SPS Yarns Private Limited and

found that child labour were engaged and they were not even given

basic amenities. In the said circumstances, the prosecution of this

petitioner and others is in accordance with law.

5. The main ground urged by Sri Pradyumna Kumar Reddy,

learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner is that SPS

Yarns Private Limited was not made as an accused, for which

reason, prosecution against the petitioner has to be quashed. The

judgments relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel are not

applicable to the facts of the present case. In the present

prosecution, it is not the case of the police that the company has

committed acts which attract penal consequences and the

petitioner being the Managing Director is made vicariously liable. It

is the specific case of the prosecution that this petitioner had

instructed A3 and A4 labour contractors to get the labourers for

working in the company. It is further alleged that this petitioner

and A2 have exploited the children, without giving basic amenities

and treated them as bonded labour.

6. As seen from the charge sheet, this petitioner had actively

participated in the process of securing the child labour with the

help of A3 and A4. In the said circumstances, it cannot be said that

the SPS Yarns Private Limited is guilty of any of the offences alleged

and the petitioner was made vicariously liable. In fact the Company

is aggrieved by the acts of this petitioner for engaging child labour.

Though the child labour were made to work in the company, the

said procuring of the child labour was done at the instance of this

petitioner according to the charge sheet.

7. Under Section 370 of IPC, who ever recruits for the purpose of

exploitation is said to have involved in trafficking a person. In the

present case, prima facie, it is alleged in the charge sheet that A1

had procured the child labour and recruited them for the purpose

of working in the company.

8. The allied offences of child labour and exploiting children

and engaging them as labour are also punishable under the

provisions of Section 79 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and

Protection of Children) Act, 2015 and Section 14 (1) of Child Labour

(Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986 which are extracted here

under:

"79.Exploitation of a child employee: Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, whoever ostensibly engages a child and keeps him in bondage for the purpose of employment or withholds his earnings or uses such earning for his own purposes shall be punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine of one lakh rupees. Explanation.--For the purposes of this section, the term "employment" shall also include selling goods and services, and entertainment in public places for economic gain."

"14 Penalties. --

(1) Whoever employs any child or permits any child to work in contravention of the provisions of section 3 shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three months but which may extend to one year or with fine which shall not be less than ten thousand rupees but which may extend to twenty thousand rupees or with both."

9. Further, the allegations made also attract offence under the

provisions of Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act. The High

Court in exercise of its inherent powers can only quash the

proceedings in rare cases where on the face of record there appears

that no case is made out and none of the ingredients of the offences

alleged are attracted in a given case. Further in the event of not

following any mandatory procedures prescribed for launching

prosecution, this Court can exercise the inherent powers under

section 482 CRPC to prevent abuse of process of Court.

10. Non-inclusion of the company will not in any manner affect

the case of the prosecution in the present facts and circumstances

wherein the petitioner was actively involved in procuring the